Talk:English Heritage

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old Discussions

Thoughts please:

When I started adding heritage-y type govt bodies for England, Wales etc I thought it would be good to provide as many links as possible.

In particular, I adopted a structure where each page for one of these UK agencies had links to:

a. Wiki pages for the other equivalent UK agencies

b. The *external* site of the agency itself

c. The *external* sites of the other UK agenices listed in (a).

---

Looking at it now, I am beginning to feel that (c) is a waste of time and space. If you are on the Enhlish Heritage (EH) page and you want to know about Historic Scotland (SH), you can easily go to the wiki SH page and from there, if you want it, the SH external website is only one click away.

So, I am feeling inclined to remove the (c) bits from these four pages as I do not think they add anything. Comments please? Nevilley

Yes, I think you're right. As long as one can link to the equivalent Wiki pages, one doesn't need the extra external links. I haven't really started adding external links to much of my output, so I'll be able to bear that in mind from now on. User:Renata

OK done that. I think it makes more sense and is more elegant in its current form. Thanks, Nev

which is a direct result of government policy, but only up to a point, Lord Copper. EH are primarily a quango and are largely autonomous in most of their activities. user:sjc

SJC's amendment did not read as very NPOV to me but rather as a quite impassioned statement. I have altered it slightly. I thought it was OK to report differing views as long as they were clearly that, not stated as fact. Nevilley

Yeah, no probs. They are unelected and they are a quango though;. user:sjc

Um, what's a quango? -- Zoe

It's a quango... user:sjc

Of course if English Heritage didn't charge admission they would have to make up the shortfall elsewhere - presumably from more money from central government... This needs NPOVing.Secretlondon 23:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. adamsan 17:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saville Row Office

The Saville Row office has been closed the picture should be removed and a picture of the new headquarters at 1 Waterhouse Square, Holborn, London should be added.

Cleanup Taskforce

Despite what this banner suggests, the 'frequent changes due to cleanup activity' have yet to materialise...

...however I have made a start by organising this Talk page!

EdJogg 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headquater Controversy

They Agreed To Demolishing There Own Head Quarters In A Conservation Zone to Build Flats

"English Heritage has controversially agreed to allow its own historic London headquarters to be demolished and replaced by flats – despite it being in a conservation area."

http://www.rics.org/Property/Commercialproperty/Commercialpropertydevelopment/heritage_hq_230306.html

Catintheoven 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy of English Heritage Sites in Cornwall

Whilst this is very interesting, I would comment that any historical site/monument,etc which comes under the jurisdiction of English Heritage prior to the 5th or 6th Centuries, which is now found in the modern country of England, would not be English at all and should be attributed to Celtic/Briton or Roman. For example, how can Stonehenge be under the care of English Heritage when at the time it was built the Englishas a nation did not exist and certainly not on these islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Heritage is an organisation not a label, just like CADW in Wales. The majority of CADW's major attractions are English castles: that is, built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the Welsh (as opposed to being built by Anglo-Normans to suppress the English). I've never heard any Cornish or Welsh nationalist suggesting they're handed back to the English, or even be described as English. I also take it that you think Historic Scotland should not attribute anything pre 5th century as being Scottish, as the Scotti were still in Ireland at that point? Strange that you've not made the same comment on that Talk page.--Cenwulf 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree that a large amount of CADW's historical sites may well have been built by Anglo Normans but they still lie within the present boundaries of Wales and have had a direct influence on Welsh history and culture similarly, as would the Roman remains throughout Wales not built, perhaps, by the Welsh/Celts directly. Remains of historic significance in the present modern day England prior to there being any Anglo-Norman influence can hardly be described as "English Heritage". Scotland have it right calling their body 'Historic Scotland' as you will find that the definition of historic does not imply anything than promote historic importance with CADW maintaining the historic environment CADW meaning to keep. Neither of these bodies promote that they are the heritage of the country whereas English Heritage does. I suppose there are many Welshmen/Celts who would consider the castles in Wales as part of their heritage as they were built in a country where they remain resident and where their predecessors also lived whereas anything built in the British Isles prior to the 4th or 5th centuries were neither built by Anglo-Normans nor did they have a direct influence on the Anglo-Normans. That English Heritage is an organisation not a label is fine but my dictionary definition of the word heritage I'm afraid infers something other than merely the workings of an organisation and is quite clear in that it means an inheritance. France, Spain, Italy, etc do not claim Celtic sites as part of their inheritance but set it aside as part of the history of the country. Perhaps it's just a problem with semantics on my part but heritage is not something you happen to have in a country you have conquered it's something your historic ancestors had a hand in. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.154.254 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you state that the word heritage clearly refers to an inheritance, then the term English Heritage is correct for the organisation, and for Stonehenge. Stonehenge is in England - and has been inherited - it has been passed down by the quirks of history, through various tribes, groups, monarchs, private owners etc to the present generation. The English as we define them today may not have built Stonehenge, but they have inherited it and therefore the title "English heritage" is more than appropriate.

Then if you were a white American you would be claiming North American Pueblos as your heritage too, through quirks of history, in that case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heritage of Cornwall is Cornish, not English. Time to take our country back, piece by piece! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.108 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

I find a couple of elements of the article display a certain point of view:

"English Heritage is thus an unelected quango with a considerable degree of power and access to public money derived from taxation". All true, but it has already been stated a couple of times that it is a non-departmental public body. Quango tends to be used in a dismissive sense. Unelected quango seems to be pure needle.

Agreed - rv'ed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast, such policy is common for similar organisations, such as the National Trust." Prior sentences establish it has a membership which cannot steer its work. I question why a comparison is made at all, and in any event find the comparison bogus simply for the reason that NDPBs do not tend to be membership controlled organisations by their very nature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - modified those and other sentences to de-POV and add relevant material. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"free admission to its properties " this implies english heritage has ownership. I think this is not true. I don't know who owns stonehenge but it certainly isn't a quango set up in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.90 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

A very small incident…

About what happened with the English heritage signs in Cornwall, is it really necessary to have it here? The group involved in the removing of these signs aren’t exactly well known to say, Mebyon Kernow too. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a, now defunct, group of malcontents stirred up an issue which few here in Cornwall support.Serpren (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate or Misleading Information on Its Listed Buildings Website - here is the information that justifies the edit: send and email address and I will forward.

Here is the contents of an email that is typically sent to somebody who points out factually incorrect information in the English Heritage listed buildings website:

"Many thanks for this information. However list descriptions are statutory documents and can only be changed with the approval of the Secretary of State through the issue of an amendment. If you wish to request an amendment you will need to complete an Application Form to Designate a Heritage Asset that can be found on our website at the following link: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/designation/process/online-application-form/.

Kind regards,

Marion Page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this discussion to the talk page. First of all, posting a private email on Wikipedia, either in the article or in a talk page, is very much frowned upon. This is a general rule of net etiquette as well (e.g.). As such, your edit is problematic because it basically consists of a public posting of a private email.

Secondly, I'm not really seeing the controversy here. Their website, reasonably enough, lists information as recorded in the government's official records. In order to change those records, approval of the Secretary of State is apparently required. As such, they cannot correct their records solely on the basis of an email from a citizen. While this may be time consuming and/or burdensome, it seems like a fairly normal bureaucratic policy, and I don't see how it's so controversial or deserving of such offense.

Finally, and this is the big one, information on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by citations to reliable sources. Your edit cites none. You assert that there is "misleading or inaccurate information" on their website, but there is no citation for this claim, let alone one from a reliable source. Nor do you cite a source for the fact that they are not "particularly interested" in resolving such inaccuracies: they could be quite interested but unable to do so because of the relevant laws. If a notable newspaper or periodical ran a story about inaccuracies in the records of English Heritage, this could quite likely be notable, but as it stands, it's simply you trying to use Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are fudging and I suspect you are involved in English Heritage in some way. I am simply saying that the organisation is not interested in correcting inaccurate information in its website. I don't know WHY that might be: all I am saying is that is the case. If they (maybe you?) are justified in not correcting mistakes, possibly for legal reasons, then edit the article and state why. It would in no way detract from my assertion that they are not 'particularly interested' in correcting inaccuracies. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. Do not censor edits simply because you don't agree with them. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, that is the whole point of it. Editors are not obliged to start a debate in the discussion page. However, of course, anybody can initiate a debate in the discussion page in response to an edit or for any other reason. Wikipedia is about facts and I have stated a fact, whether you like it or not. I hope this clarifies things for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with English Heritage in any way, [so you say] and if you care to look through my Wikipedia contribution history [can't be arsed to (just like english heritage in fixing their mistakes) and it would mean nothing anyway], you can see that this is (to the best of my recollection [crap and you know it]), the first time I've had any involvement with this article [more crap]. In fact, I'm many thousand miles away. Nor am I really sure what fudging is [look in a good dictionary]. I made a good faith argument with reference to Wikipedia policies, and you come back at me by claiming I'm somehow part of English Heritage instead of addressing any of my points [what points?].

You state that "Wikipedia is about facts and I have stated a fact, whether you like it or not." Actually, that's not a very good definition of what we're [who is 'we'? you think you're wikipedia? LOL] about. See Wikipedia:Five_pillars [see it yourself and quote it] for the core foundations of the community. You'll see that neutrality and verifiability are key policies here. The Verifiability policy states in its introduction: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." To do this, information needs to be attributable to a reliable published source [quoted an english heritatge email} (see WP:RS [why don't you quote it?] for information on what constitutes a reliable source). Your edits do not satisfy this criteria: your claims are based on your original research [on a real incident actually, which is verifiable] rather than any sort of published source [published in an email from EH]. As such, they are not presently suitable for inclusion [in your very humble opinion]. Again, should reliable newspapers or periodicals publish stories on inaccuracies in English Heritage's records, including that information in this article could well make a great deal of sense [since when are they reliable LOL]. If you can provide reliable sources [I did] that back up this information, I'd be happy [you would not be happy because all you are interested in is the status quo] to take a look and that would give us a great basis to write from, but I see no evidence [you don't want to, that's why] that any such citations exist at this time.

Finally, there's the issue of undue weight. That are many things that are true facts about English Heritage, yet they do not belong in this article because they are not prominent enough to be included [prominence has nothing to do with it]. The article mentions the chief executive, but not the names of the secretarial staff; it mentions the group's total expenses for the year, but not how much is spent on janitorial [ah, maybe you're american] supplies; you get the point... [yes I do - you're a complete twat] On Wikipedia, "viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" (WP:NPOV). A "controversy" in this article should be represented roughly in proportion to the significance of the controversy [tautological crap). A major scandal that makes the front pages of newspapers and leads to public discussion is worthy of more coverage in the article than an unpopular decision that receives minor attention [who are you to determine that?]. Your edit, however gives about the same weight to this issue as the "English Heritage sites in Cornwall" case: an event that received multiple mentions in the BBC and other media outlets. In this case, we have zero reliable sources [an email from EH is a reliable source] (in fact, we have no sources besides yourself [see before LOL]) that tell us that this "controversy" has received any public attention. If an event is of little significance [in only your opinion], it would give that event undue weight to include it in the article, but that's exactly what you want to do here.

Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then what is 'history'? Presumably it has always had a good deal to do with 'politics'. I take an interest in history but I am not a politician and I may be taking a wrong approach but I consider English Heritage to be currently radically out of order from an historical point of view in regard to war memorials. I can give examples and explanation of this complete indifference existing presumably at a governmental level if anyone is interested (I think it is a problem now and will be one in the future, because nobody or very few people are perhaps going to have any idea what the First World War memorials were actually supposed to be about, given in particular the ridiculolus addition of the Second World War to their purposes, this being admittedly something with which English Heritage itself was not directly involved since at the time it did not exist).

In conclusion, I suggest that this is in fact a Scottish and a European issue, not simply related to this country, England. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.134.83 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and improvements to this page

Earlier discussions point out that this page is thin on information and very out of date - but so far no-one seems to have tackled it, even though there have been lots of lively discussion most of it is about issues rather than basic stuff.

What is people's opinion if I have a go at adding some text under the following new sections (ie using a similar format to the English National Trust page)?

history of the organisation
purpose and remit (eg it would be nice to include something about planning policy and how the listed building process operates)
Governance inc committees
Funding inc links to the most recent accounts
Membership
Volunteering
Heritage at risk survey

Any other ideas?

Is there anyone else, or other method that I should use to get opinions from other editors?

I am not proposing to add anything about the properties themselves, as there are already separate pages for most of these. I will also avoid changing anything under the heading 'controversies' until a consensus is reached. Please let me know your thoughts before I spend too much time on this. FGLawson (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to English Heritage page

Here is the start of some suggestions to improve the text on this page, to update content, upgrade it to Wikipedia standards and make it more relevant. This is a work in progress, so please bear with me as I add the correct references, more text etc over the next few 'days' (or weeks). FGLawson (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved your additions to your sandbox here as it would not really be appropriate to have an entire article draft taking up the talk page. My advice would be to be bold and just incorporate into the existing article, people will soon complain if they disagree with you, and then you can debate contentious issues on the talk page. Hope this is okay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so FGLawson made the changes. He was WP:BOLD, but under WP:BRD I strongly disagree, so have reverted and now invite discussion. I don't think that what was posted is sufficiently well done to replace what was there. For a number of reasons. Where did the lead section go? Why was the whole controversies section deleted - I hope this isn't an indication of conflict of interest. Rather than a wholesale replacement of the article, which has grown organically through the contributions of many editors, why not improve it section by section. For example, I do like that FGLawson had a history section, so why not start with that? Perhaps take some of the existing info out of the lead, which is perhaps a bit too long, and the stuff from the new version and combine to make a comprehensive history of English Heritage. Then move onto the other stuff. What I would also like to see in any changes that are made is an improvement in referencing style. If the same reference is to be given multiple times then use a name e.g. first time call it in full with <ref name=myreference>this is the reference text....</ref> and then in future simply repeat the reference with <ref name=myreference/>. Also, bare URL's as references are ugly and would be much better replaced with {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}} etc. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about not deleting the controversies section - if anything, we could perhaps add one or two things to that, including the various permutations of the Stonehenge story under EH management. Could we perhaps review some of the proposed changes in slices? Some of them looked quite useful. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good bits, I agree, but it was all to much to swallow in one go. Your suggestion is a good one. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments! The advice was to be bold - so I was! I had hoped that by posting things in advance I might have had some suggestions earlier... but being bold certainly got a response! Just let me know or show me how to improve the referencing - I know that the way I have done it is very clumsy, but I couldn't work out from the guidance how to make it better and some other sites that I used for comparison were pretty clumsy too.

I was in several minds about keeping the 'controvery' section - as its presence is, in itself, controversial. Because of the earlier talk comments about most of the content here being out of date and occasionally POV/tangental - and because the other heritage and charity organisations (ie Cadw, Historic Scotland, National Trust) do not contain such a section, it didn't seem such a big deal. Anyway, as Jamesinderbyshire has pointed out, there are other more recent (and properly controversial) controversies, although many of these are already dealt with elsewhere such as on the Stonehenge pages themselves.

With regards to the lead section, I was trying not to repeat things again later on in the article. All the information in the 'lead' is within the other sections. FGLawson (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EH has sometimes been critiqued as an organisation, particularly historically for its handling of Stonehenge and so there is merit in either having a separate controversies section or else including it - the problem with always devolving to articles lower down the food chain is that it then takes it away from the relevant fact that it is EH as an organisation determining policy and not just some action taking place at, for example, the Stonehenge level. We used to have more on that here - I see it's been deleted - will look at restoring where useful. There are controversies about the NT as well and there have been attempts to add it in the past. I suspect the others are just too small to come to notice much. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the lead section, see WP:LEAD, which should explain everything you need to know. In short it is an introduction and summary of the key points in the article - so by its very nature it will replicated content that exists (in more depth) later in the article. So, how do you want to proceed? We want to see the article improved and so will support you in making those changes. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bob: incorporate sections from your draft one at a time (or relevant excerpts), and as there seem to be a few people's eyes here, we can see how we get along, and get a good article working here. The "History" section would seem an appropriate place to start... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight, perhaps it was a mistake to move all the proposals into the sandbox rather than have them on the talk pages for disucssion. The reason why I trailed the new heading ideas and then put all the new text onto the Talk page was to avoid such a 'throw out baby with bathwater' reaction. No wonder new editors are discouraged when faced with a barrage of Wiki bureaucracy see WP:BITE. Doesn't WP:BRD come into play when "where seeking consensus would be difficult" and "not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes"?

However, let us move forwards in a positive fashion. I propose that:

- I will work on the referencing suggestions (which were very usfeul thankyou)in the sandbox

- But rather than start with the 'History' section, (which is the longest and therefore hardest to digest), I start instead with the 'Membership'; 'Volunteering' and 'Funding' sections. These are short, self-contained and contain mostly new, rather than revised, information.

- Shall I put these onto 'Talk' or into the article?

By the way, I don't think that English Heritage 'determines policy' as Jamesinderbyshire says - surely as a quango it can't do that because setting policy is the role of Government? I am assuming that you mean planning policy here by the way. It's remit says that is is a consultee, (admittedly a big one), but other groups in the voluntary sector such as the National Trust, conservation bodies, religious groups etc and even the EU are also involved. FGLawson (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think you have been bitten, that wasn't the intention. However, such a radical change combined with the deletion of a controversy section and your obvious knowledge of the organisation raised the question about conflict of interest - hence my post to your talk page. Your suggestion on the three smaller sections is a good one. I don't see any problem with you putting them straight onto the page. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry if you felt bitten, that wasn't my intention either. I was aiming to encourage you to be bold and make the changes yourself. It seemed that you had some good proposals, but you were seeking consensus for each and every one, and I don't think you'd ever have found anyone to do that. I stand by my moving your proposals to the sandbox to preserve them for these reasons. I think the reason all your changes were reverted was that they were all made at once, and took out some information that was already in place. Again, I'd suggest making them one by one, so the WP:BRD can come into play for each change. And again, I'd agree with Bob and encourage you to merge and incorporate your proposals into the existing article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind if the links to Jennifer Page and Anna Keay are removed from this page, on the grounds that no other past chief executives or directors have links, and neither of these two individuals are mentioned in the article? FGLawson (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, does anyone mind if these links are removed as well?:

- 'List of conservation topics' (as it is a list of articles relating to conservation biology and conservation of the natural environment, and not to heritage)
- 'Heritage Film' (as it is a link to 20th centuary British cinema, so the relevance is somewhat tangental)FGLawson (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, is the section called 'Domain' ok to stay, or should it go (or be absorrbed somewhere else)? It seems to duplicate informatation that is written (slightly differently) elsewhere. FGLawson (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hi, having read through the page a couple of things strike me about it:

The sections are too small and could easily be merged. For example, could the 'Domain', 'Purpose and Remit' and 'How English Heritage is run' sections be merged into one 'Operation' section? Equally, is there any sections that the 'Membership' and 'Volunteering' sections be merged into or be made sub sections of?
The page is very confused and repeats points such as who EH are and what purpose they play. Some of these sentences could be removed and made clearer.
There seemed to be a lot of 'See also' links. Should these be reduced?

Also, on the talk page, I am unsure if the current Start rating reflects accurately the page's current state. Maybe it could be updated. And finally could an archive be done of old discussions on this page. It is really rather confusing.

I present these ideas for consideration. I am an outsider to this page but know a little about EH and it could be expressed clearer. Thanks. Rafmarham (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rafmarham - These ideas sound sensible. I agree that there is duplication about the domain, purpose and management - this is because when I altered the page earlier I was trying not to get rid of too much! However, now that this text has been up for a while, it would be good to tidy up and re-visit. I'm not convinced about the term 'Operations' for these however, or about merging the membership and volunteering sections. 'Operations' does not convey the public and statutory nature of the organisation, or show how it is different from something like, say, the National Trust. Do you have any alternative suggestions? Not all members are volunteers, and vice versa. The National Trust page has these under separate sections, and it reads ok.

Which 'see also' were you thinking of removing? FGLawson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Hitherto"

Re this edit and its reversion by Snowded. "Hitherto" means "to here", "to this point", or (if used in the context of time) "until now". A statement made at the time a particular change is implemented might well say something like "the act dissolves the bodies that have hitherto provided advice"; but if you then change that statement into an account of what happened in the past, not only do you have to modify the tense of the verbs ("dissolves" becomes "dissolved"; "have provided" becomes "had provided"), you also have to change the word "hitherto" to something else. The IP's suggestion "thitherto" (meaning "to there" or "until then") was grammatically correct, but archaic and ugly English. My alternative, "previously", was grammatically correct, colloquial, and (I would have thought) uncontroversial. Leaving the word as "hitherto" is ungrammatical nonsense. GrindtXX (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that hitherto in use now incorporated thitherto, but if you really want previously I'm not going to get worked up about it----Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Changed. GrindtXX (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on English Heritage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor drafting

Very bad grammar and syntax in this article. I've done a bit but it needs more work. Deipnosophista (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]