Talk:Historic preservation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

REWRITE

The very first sentence is wrong. "Historic preservation or heritage conservation is a professional endeavor..." In the US, preservationist is an activist, not a professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.130.23 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

So I saw the rewrite tag hanging up there for a month or so...and well I had at it!

I rewrote most of the article, took out a bunch of stuff and re-worked the rest, also added refs, and some fact tags. I'd like to remove the entire education section and either trash it or make a new article. Any thoughts??? Also the article still needs a good bit of work, it looks a lot better now but I think we can add more info to it. --eLeigh33 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much awesome. I will read it over now. IvoShandor 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some notes:

• The lead should represent a good summary per WP:LEAD. The quote in the midst of it doesn't seem to flow too well.
• In England, Antiquarian interests were a familiar gentleman's pursuit since the mid 17th century, developing in tandem with the rise in scientific curiosity.: Seems to be a bit of a non sequitur, perhaps.
• Fellows of the Royal Society were often also Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries.: the next sentence seems to be a fragment, and has too much "jargon" to be really useful, imo.
• Probably needs a copy edit, as most articles always do. I made a few minor changes. : )
• This document was the result of a major collaborative effort . . .: Which document? This is confusing because the sentence before mentions the initiative and a couple other bodies which could be construed as documents.
• which will continue to find a unique expression in each of the jurisdictions and regions of the country.: This is way too much of a prediction, it seems to forecast the future.
• I would just lose the listy/blockquoted section under Canada and convert it to prose. Lists are just bad style, generally speaking.
• All lists should be converted to prose in the Influential people section and the careers section, the people section probably needs some reference to it.
• The Education section can probably go as it is little more than a college guide, this is an encyclopedia. Take it out there as you proposed. : )

Hope that helps. I would be happy to provide additional comment. IvoShandor 02:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the content suggestions above are relevant, others are not. As many of the concepts listed as "needing to be added" on this talk page are better covered here with a statement or two and a link to the more in depth articles on them, for instance, the place to discuss the National Register of Historic Places (U.S.) criteria is not this article but the NRHP article, where it appears, albeit, in the midst of a major overhaul, but that is where it belongs. IvoShandor 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the copy edit!! I wasn't expecting much response as the article seemed a bit dead.

• The lead-I stuck the quote in their because it was a pretty good description of HP, but if you want to re-word go right ahead.
• Glad you agree about the education section, I think if no one complains we should kill it in a few days
• Canada, Oh Canada... That was the one section I didnt touch. I saw someone added it not too long ago (see above on talk page) and it was referenced, but I'll revisit it.

---eLeigh33 03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I should have realized that about Canada, I saw it there on the talk page, but I guess since I didn't really check the edit history I wouldn't know, it was just easier to review as a whole, this is much much better than it was. I thought the article was too underreferenced before to be useful at all and contained a lot of POV without attribution as well. IvoShandor 03:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm going to continue to work on the article, but it prob. wont be until sunday at the earliest. --eLeigh33 03:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I will help out where I can. I have been doing a lot of research per the expansion of National Register of Historic Places, some of that info may be relevant here, quite a few good sources for that article, so I will see. I will continue to copy edit too. IvoShandor 03:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I split the refs and notes section. The refs section (references and further reading) can become just Further reading if we check to see they aren't used in text. If they are we should remove them from that list as they should be in the notes. Incidentally, I formatted the first reference in the intro, here. This pretty much a standard format for a web cite, I have several GAs with similar technique. Citations 7 and 8 need to include more info, see my example (minus the website), the books will need ISBN numbers as well. There are templates at WP:CITET, I don't like to use them as I find them too cluttery but they can at least give you an idea of what kinds of information to include in your inline citations.

Also, notice, if you look at the code, that I gave the first reference a name, <ref name=tps>Weeks, Kay. "[http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/clocks/index.htm Telling Historic Preservation Time]," National Park Service, Technical Preservation Service, ''CRM'', Vol. 16, No. 7; 1993. Retrieved [[30 March]] [[2007]].</ref>

Not sure if you know this but the cool thing about that feature is the next time I go to use that reference as an inline cite in the article all I would have to do is type <ref name=tps/>. You can give all of your references a name using that method. When they show up in the notes section the original full cite is listed once with letters beside it to denote multiple uses.

IvoShandor 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this part, minus the external links, of the "Education" section would be useful in the "History" section?

Columbia University[1] was the first school in the United States to specifically offer a degree in historic preservation in 1973 (the M.S.). It became the model on which most other graduate historic preservation programs were created. Many other programs were to follow before 1980: M.A. in Preservation Planning from Cornell (1975); M.S. in Historic Preservation from the University of Vermont (1975); M.S. in Historic Preservation Studies from Boston University (1976); and M.S. in Historic Preservation from Eastern Michigan University (1979). The first undergraduate programs (B.A.) appeared in 1977 from Goucher College and Roger Williams College.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvoShandor (talk • contribs) 04:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

UK Ancient Monuments Act

One question: the reference to the UK Ancient Monuments Act in the second paragraph in History, refers to an act in 1912. In the List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1900-1919 there is an act passed in 1913 - is this the one? Also, there apparently was an act passed in 1882 - Ancient Monuments Act of 1882, should this be the reference? Viv Hamilton 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• did some research, and according to the UK's national archives the act was passed in 1913 and is called " Ancient Monuments Act 1913". I'll fix it in the article. Don't know if it was a typo to begin with or if the legislation originated in 1912 and someone was referring to that? --eLeigh33 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Historic" and(/or) "Preservation"

A recent edit prompted this part of the discussion. Columbia University's Historic Preservation graduate program (noted in this entry as the first in the nation, alongside that at UPenn) capitalizes both words, "historic" and "preservation." Since it is a field of study and an area of specialization, like "Comparative Literature," and "Art History," I think the capitalization should remain as-is (that is, capitalizing both words in the title).

Any thoughts?

(Note: I disagree with the first sentence in the entry. As an individual working in Preservation, I publicly advocate for retention of historic fabric and character, research, and write about the importance of historic structures and sites. Several individuals who work for institutions like the Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service-- as well as the National Trust-- are not "conservators," but work to save historic architecture and important sites via other methods that do not necessarily directly involve "maintaining and repairing existing historic materials and the retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time." Nonetheless, their work is still considered "Historic Preservation." An opening sentence that better reflects this dynamic nature of the practice of Historic Preservation might clear any confusion.) BFDhD 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that this article's title should have both words capitalized, see WP:NAME#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles. Unless this article was strictly about the academic field, which it isn't. Go ahead and rework the lead, if you want, remember WP:RS. Thanks for the input, as I monitor but don't really edit this article, as I have way way too much to do around here already. ; ) IvoShandor 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Even then the term is no more proper, IMO, while the colleges that have such programs may capitalize them I would suggest that common usage wouldn't unless they represented a specific program, i.e.Columbia University Historic Preservation Program (department, section etc. whatever it is there). I am pretty sure that would represent the common usage of the term. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. IvoShandor 05:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Historic Preservation is the journal of the National Trust. Or was. Historic preservation is the subject of this article, even though one may now get an advanced degree in Historic Preservation. --Wetman 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The short and sweet of my verbose reply. IvoShandor 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the "P" should not be capitalized. I reworked a good portion of this article and I tend to over-capitalize things, so I may have added the extra P's without thinking. --eLeigh33 17:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sold. Lowercase sounds good to me. . . . Thanks for the discussion! BFDhD 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Removed this text from article until fact check:

The adaptive reuse of obsolete structures dates to the end of the 4th century in Europe, when the Theodosian decrees had rendered pagan temples obsolete. Many of the pagan temples that were not destroyed were re-purposed for use as Christian Basilicas. Sacred wells from the 5th century were comverted to baptisteries. Adaptive reuse of historic structures remains a central issue of historic preservation today.

Pennsylvania Station (New York City)

It is surprising to me that the demolition of the original building (1910-1964), which I understood to be the catalyst of the modern historic preservation movement in the United States, to be unmentioned in this article. Is there a specific and justifiable rationale for this? Shoreranger (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion of not including it - so just be bold and add it! Viv Hamilton (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit embarrassed by this article -- we can do better

Historic preservation is far more than buildings and historic districts. Where is the history on landscape preservation, for instance? Where are non-Western perspectives? What about contemporary issues of sustainability and embodied energy? Surely we can do better. Tous ensemble (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the tout ensemble? --BFDhD (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The start of this article is written in a crass, quasi-postmodern style. Historic preservation may well be about preserving objects' ability 'to communicate an intended meaning ... rooted in cultural and social processes', but this could be expressed without resorting to such clumsy verbiage. I'm rewriting the start. CharlieRCD (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Non-Western perspectives"? The phrase historic preservation is completely Western and, I would argue, specific to the United States and Canada. The rest of the world uses architectural or heritage conservation. I don't think we should worry about being inclusive or politically correct in this case. While I appreciate the rewrite of the intro, I think it should at least acknowledge the Amero-centric nature of the HP industry. Fitzed (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unruly Links

The external links at the bottom of the article are getting a bit out of hand. I suggest we limit these to external sites that directly contribute to the readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Following the guideline set forth here, Wikipedia:External_links, I will remove all tertiary links save for one to an external directory (i.e. PreserveNet, unless there are any other suggestions). Fitzed (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)