Talk:List of destroyed heritage

Kosovo

I have added some small, neutral and evidence based additions to the Kosovo section regarding Serbian cultural sites. However, my additions are being reverted due to the "POV" banner. Attacks on Serbian heritage in Kosovo have been a reality from 1999 until today. The supporting evidence provides an accurate depiction of what occurred. If anybody feels this is not the case, please add supportive evidence and edit accordingly. The previous template was not only lacking detail but also, too skewed to the Albanian cultural heritage attacks. The previous template was lacking supportive Serbian material and was actually POV supporting the Albanian heritage attacks. I have kept my addition as neutral and factual as possible and further removal without supporting evidence will be reverted. My current addition makes reference to Daesh inspired attacks in Kosovo on Serbian heritage sites, removal of this evidence based and factual addition will be considered a pro-terrorist edit TryDeletingMe (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC).

Your talk about "DAESH" and "pro-terrorist edit" calls into question your comments about having "added some small, neutral and evidence based additions to the Kosovo section regarding Serbian cultural sites." DAESH has existed in the middle east from the 2013-2015 period. I am yet to see news reports/evidence about that organisation being active in the Balkans by carrying out attacks on Orthodox heritage. About Orthodox heritage being destroyed after the 1999 war in Kosovo consult the book Violence Taking Place: The Architecture of the Kosovo Conflict by Andrew Herscher (2010) [1]. He was part of the Hague war crimes investigation team and his book is based on evidence he and his team collected. Roughly two thirds of his book covers destroyed Serbian heritage. The book is neutral, scholarly and covers a lot including perpetrators, destruction etc.Resnjari (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Resnjari since you missed this, and it's relevant -- User_talk:TryDeletingMe#Flags_of_Kekistan,_Gaddafi,_and_Assad. Mulling over the best way to handle this...--Calthinus (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The addition refers to an incident that occurred outside the Visoki Decani monastery where pro-Daesh graffiti was written, the link provided supports the claim along with the near miss terrorist incident by Islamist extremists, an event also documented by documented sources. I made no claim they are active in the Balkans so it is evident you did not even read my addition. I am yet to understand how adding further documentation of attacks backed by factual information is POV, if that is the case then I will edit the Albanian part of the text to align with the growing consensus TryDeletingMe (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, how are you all defining "neutral"? Have you taken the time to read WP:Neutral? Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. I only came across this article via WP:Huggle. I'm not interested in this topic, and I will leave this matter up to you and others to be sorted out, but I felt the need to state something. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My edit to the Albanian section has been reverted, the pro-Daesh crusaders are united. It is appalling to see double standards being applied whereby attempts to expand the section regarding Serbian heritage is being roadblocked due to "POV" banner, while attempts made to remove POV viewpoints in the Albanian section is being roadblocked due to the "neutral" banner. Yes I am aware of neutrality and hence have attempted to edit the section to appear more neutral. If the Albanian section is being promoted with in depth documentation and terms such as "ethnic cleansing" while the Serbian section is only allowed a short blurb, the current template is not neutral. If attempts are being made to hide the truth then those editors obviously have a vested interest in supporting that group of perpetrators. TryDeletingMe (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Growing consensus consisting of who, you? Please, edit with your main account, please :). Anyhow, referring to myself, Resnjari and/or Ktrimi991 as "pro-Daesh crusaders" is a personal attack. Retract it in the next 24 hours or I may report, depending on how busy I am :) I mean, last I heard I was a "Zionist extremist" so clearly if I can get called a Zionist extremist and a pro-Daesh "crusader" in a month I must be doing something good, right? :)--Calthinus (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@TryDeletingMe: its disappointing that you have gone down the road you have by saying "the pro-Daesh crusaders are united". You may have a viewpoint that is different to others and that's fine but saying things like that is totally uncalled for (see:wp:civil). Nonetheless the bits you deleted on Albanian heritage in Kosovo in this article are scholarship that meets Wikipedia requirements of wp:neutral and wp:reliable and do not come from tabloid media or other sources. Addressing your comments on ISIS graffiti at Visoki Decani, one, the source does NOT refer to who the perpetrators are (which you seem to be certain about) and two, the source is a speech given by a Serbian government minister to an OSCE crowd. Though i don't doubt what has been highlighted in that speech, the speech itself constitutes a wp:primary document and is not what Wikipedia uses to source its content, as (wp:secondary) is most preferred. Its why i referred you to Herscher's work. The events in the speech are from 2015, so academics would have written about such things or credible media. Source it to sources from there and first place it the Destruction of Serbian heritage in Kosovo article. This page only contains summaries of larger articles and do not list every single act, but main pages do. I hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to put a Balkans sanctions notice on this page? I've given TryDeletingMe another DS alert as their last one was over 12 months ago. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller Yes, it should.--Calthinus (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

World Trade Center

Although the 9/11 attacks were certainly a major world event, the World Trade Center was barely 40 years old at the time of its destruction. Does its loss really qualify as "destroyed heritage"? It was never considered an historic heritage structure, was it? 136.159.160.5 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a very good question. It is arguably a heritage site now, but the issue is whether it was one at the time. I have seen the World Trade Centre mentioned in discussions of destroyed heritage sites, for example in the works of Cornelius Holtorf. To take another work, The Construction of Built Heritage: A North European Perspective on Policies explains that their indellible association with American cultural capital became their downfall. Amongst the outpouring of condemnation and painful description, there is the chilling reflection that attitudes towards heritage values may also need to be reassessed. The loss of these buildings has abruptly changed one of the most famous city skylines in the world. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The WTC had many appearances in popular culture, serving as a symbol of New York City. It was also the tallest building in the world at the time of its completion. It was much more than just a regular skyscraper even if it did not have a heritage designation but the entry has been removed with this edit; I would move for it to be reinstated. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It has now been a week and there have been no objections to my proposal so I have re-added the WTC entry. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kosovo

I have tried to summarize in two sentences the systematic destruction of heritage through many conflicts. This is far wider than the so-called revenge attacks, as @Ktrimi991: alleges in his serious POV and shameful minimization of crimes (this includes medieval monuments!). There is a wealth of evidence and relevant sources about the planned and systematic destruction of Serbian heritage. Moreover, EU Special Investigative indicated that a certain element of the KLA intentionally targeted minority populations with acts of persecution that also included desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites. Also, I mentioned the only UNESO World Heritage Site in Kosovo, which is Serbian heritage and their inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. What is so much more significant than that? Please, stop participating in the edit war and remove reliable sources without consensus at the talk page. I think two bullets need to be made, (as in the rest of the article); one about the destruction of Serbian heritage, the other about Albanian. --WEBDuB (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, do not make personal attacks such as alleges in his serious POV and shameful minimization of crimes (this includes medieval monuments!). What you consider to be my POV is well-sourced to reliable scholars. In my early days on enwiki, an apparently Albanian editor posted death threats on my talk page after I agreed with a Serbian editor. The world is not merely black and white; do not assume about people who have disputes with you. Before we continue with the content, clarify what you are talking about when making this comment in your post above: remove reliable sources without consensus at the talk page? Where did I remove reliable sources without consensus on the talk page? There is no consensus for the content you added. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I offended you. As I said, I have tried to summarize with references the systematic destruction of Serbian heritage through many conflicts. That was not mentioned in any part of the paragraph! It is ridiculous to reduce this to the level of so-called revenge attacks, serious and dangerous POV. Even in the 1999 war, some scholars have similarly described the destruction of Serbian and Albanian heritage, without favoring anyone. More significantly, the Serbian heritage was destroyed in many other periods. I tried to write it in just two sentences, while part of the Albanian heritage is disproportionately longer than any other in the entire article.--WEBDuB (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why I asked you to make a clear proposal on the talk page. You made too many changes with a single edit. First of all, I agree that the destruction of heritage did not start during the Yugoslavia period. You added a source (Mark Biondich) but did not provide its page number. Post here the page number and relevant changes can be made to the article. After this is sorted out, we can proceed with the rest of issues step by step. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@WEBDuB, what's the page number (PS: i have said to you many times before that the page number is important.)Resnjari (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Making too many changes with a single edit" means nothing realy. It is not per any Wiki rules that I know of. I may well be wrong on this. Puting on hold vital info with proper refs. (I am sure that the page number will be added at one point) and written per NPOV on the sad events (for which we all know that are unfortunately true) is not okay on a number of levels and it smells of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This not the first time @WEBDuB has not added page numbers in their edits. In some instances on other pages, the sentence added to an article purporting to claim one thing was not in the source when checked. Many of these books are 200-300 pages long and the onus does not fall on other editors to find the correct page (if it exists). At the very least provide a page number before adding content. In many articles on the Balkans a lot of topics are complicated and can ignite passions, so its important that details of the source are given. Until a page number is forthcoming for here, having that sentence in the article is POV to say the least.Resnjari (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The page number is just one of many issues, the one that is easier to solve. The addition of two pics of Serbian heritage while there is no pic of Albanian heritage is patent POV-pushing. WEBDuB criticizes the length of the part on Alb heritage, and to address that expanded the coverage of Serbian heritage to almost double the length of Alb heritage's. Not to mention the misinterpretation of two sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that too. The section on Albanian heritage which i added to the article some time back is a summary after i wrote the Destruction of Alb heritage in Kosovo article. Its not long by any stretch.Resnjari (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so the discrepancy is the problem? That is something new. UNESCO protected heritage is far more notable to be presented with a picture or two. That is me being captain obvious. Which misinterpration? Okay, so you protest because there is no page number (plus some unexplained generalisations) and yet on another article you did not see the problem with minsterpetation of sources (which was clearly explained)? I see no POV, only good contributions with sources. Some more work could be done, sure, but nothing is alarming here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How about as a start concerns are addressed like supplying a page number for the Biondich source?Resnjari (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadko, the sources you found are all dubious. Serbian and Albanian sources are generally very biased when such topics are touched. Biondich would be a good source. I might also find some proper sources but it might take some time. No more reverts should be made by us on the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not. It is just your POV, that is clear narrative pushing (victim-agressor). This narrative is sadly the same one used by Milosevic and it's today used by most Kosovo Albanians. A number of sources are in English and not by authors from this region. Most of those references are not by Batakovic, he is the editor of the book, not the author of all the articles. All of the authors are solid historians. This just proves that you did not check the references but deleted them all the same. And no, this will not be the last edit because this is a clear case of narrative pushing on your part and edit warring as well. There were originally 5 sources provided and one of them did not not have a page number so you gave yourself the right to undo editor's work entire work. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please spare me of "I will find the refs. but it will take some time". We are not kids here. It is just another way to keep the status quo. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources for the Ottoman period and WWII were Batakovic and Samardzic.... If you can not wait me, give the page of Biondich. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Its very disappointing @Sadko. Your reason for removal for this sentence is based on your personal taste of architecture: "traditional architecture" i.e. primitive stone houses (which can be found all over the Balkans) are irrelevant and were mostly not protected as cultural heritage. [2]. That's not a reason to remove. Look, most Albanian historical architecture in Kosovo was barely ever declared "cultural heritage" by the Yugoslav state or its successors apart from a handful of mosques. On the other stuff, if referencing is poor and its an edited book etc, etc, then reference it properly. Who authored the chapter etc. Its important to know. It it from the new batch of Serb historians post 2000, or is it from the old problematic group of which a sizable number peddled nationalism (especially in the 1980s and 1990s) etc in their works.Resnjari (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sakes people, if you want to add things, do the research and referencing properly first. Half if not all of this can be avoided. Google books and Google scholar are available for sources. Sheesh.Resnjari (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Those stone houses are simply irrelevant. Deal with it. This is why - "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. I think that an old mill in my village is cultural heritage, but it's simply not. And no, it's not about a taste but - is it that notable? The simple answer is - no, it's not. It would seem that a bunch of stone towers and houses are more important than UNESO heritage. That is not the real problem. Mediation will take place in this section, because there is no NPOV in mind here. And I will not walk away from deletion of proper sources (and there was a number of them) while ganging up and putting up "we don't agree" flag and than not explaining what is the real doubt is. There is no "group of problematic historians", it is plain nonsense. Samardzic could be problematic, but there are good sources used for the article in question. Or do you want to tell me that Albanian Nazi collaborators (a big % of Kosovo Albanians) respected other ethnic groups and their cultural heritage? Is that information not notable or not related to the territory of KO? Is that the reason why it should have no place in the article? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yo, we are not discussing your specific village and its mill. Kosovo has Kulla (tower house) architecture and it dated from the Ottoman period. They are not some small or simple stone houses or structures. Their destruction during the 1999 war was documented later from sources that are not Albanian, nor from Kosovo or the Balkans. Another thing, i take it you have not done any reading on the subject. I wrote a whole article about it: i.e Destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo. On the other stuff, take the time to vet what Serb academics are used. A lot of this can be avoided. Take the time to do the research first.Resnjari (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They are all over the Balkans (Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia etc.) and those building are not that notable. Try to be obcjetive. You (nor any other editor) for that matter has the right to play God here and judge that only sources outside of the Balkans can be used. And no, you do not get to discredit Sorbonne PhD historian and well-known author such as Dušan T. Bataković, because he was a patriot and received some criticism as being too nationalistic (which is not a conclusion by any means). His writings on World War 2 destruction of Serb churches and monasteris all over KiM is per serious sources and it is widely known. You did not answer my question - Do you want to tell me that Albanian Nazi collaborators (a big % of Kosovo Albanians) respected other ethnic groups and their cultural heritage? Is that information not notable or not related to the territory of KO? Is that the reason why it should have no place in the article? I can see that you wish to uphold the narrative in which Milosevic regime destroyed a bunch of mosques and other properties and than Albanians took revenge. Black and white story, nice. Adding that SOC churches and monasteries were destroyed before and naturally later on, simply destroys this pseudo-theory and that is why we have edit warring done by the two of you. No matter, there are other means to achieve NPOV and I will not simply watch agressive deletion of sources and this petty politician-like sort of behaviour. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You want to get into Bataković and his issues, i'm game. No one cares about his "patriotism". His problems were that his works were nationalist, which means that his patriotism got in the way of historical objectivity in his research. About tower houses, yes they are found in many places of the Balkans and to you they may mean squat, to locals of the Kosovo area, they were traditional architecture of significance. Also Milosevic did not destroy just a "bunch of mosques" as you say. Its documented what happened and the damage by Serb forces was plenty. For me to engage about WW2, your RS sources are ??? And please avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS.Resnjari (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sadko, I just had some time to go over the recent additions [3]. Many of the sources are ok. However a few issues remain. One Biondich has no page number. If the specific info in the book can't be located, then having it as a ref is WP:SYNTH (and original research) and should not be there. Second, is a WP:PRIMARY source of a statement [4] by the Serb Orthodox Church and should not be there. Otherwise one can place various direct statements and alike from religious Muslim figures on destruction of monuments in Kosovo. That could get messy. Anyway extensive WP:SECONDARY sources exist and covers that scope of content. Third, the sentence in the article talks of destruction during the Ottoman period and the Second World War. All sources attributed to that sentence do not talk about destruction in those two eras. In fact they only refer to the aftermath of the 1999 war and the events of 2004. So that part of the sentence is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and ought not to be in the article. Fourth, the B92.net. talks about an anniversary etc regarding the 2004 events. There already is a whole heap of RS which does not warrant cramming this in there as well. Fifth, there is repetition (see article sentences). Also, lot of the refs that give details about the aftermath of 1999 and the 2004 events are jammed into the first sentence, whereas they would be better suited in the following sentences which covers those things. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, I agree that some more tweaks are needed. I shall further work on it when I finish my RL work. Destruction of churches and mon. in Ottoman times and during WW2 on the territory of modern-day territory of Kosovo is nothing new. It is one those events which can not not be original research (basic facts), in any parallel universe. For WW2 this could be a source, an American historian using international soureces, Malocom included. His Serb roots are irrelevant here, he is an American historian. You did not get the SPC source; it is important because there is a great article written by a journalist who was in Kosovo in 1999. and there is a list of details of destroyed churches. That is good info for the subject. I shall quote only those pages, because other (letters and such) are not relevant and I agree on that. B92 could go out, there is a number of sources as it is/was. Style tweaks are in order (good point about repetition). As for Biondich I would suggest a middle solution: we know that the author, the book and the publisher are just fine, we do not have the page, okay. We could keep it untill New Year (or something like that) and if there is no page number provided, the ref. goes out. Such deals have been made before. You could help out with the sources on WW2 destructions. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sadko, on Biondich, if a page/s can't be produced then it’s not there unless proven otherwise. It was an addition by @WEBDuB and frankly going by their past editing, there has been on more than one occasion where the added sources say nothing of the sort to what a particular article sentence claimed. I am not going to do other people's research. I do have a life. Unless you and any other person locate a specific part of the book that relates to the topic, it stays out. Second, the www.rastko.rs website republished a Carl Savich article that appeared first on Serbianna. The website is run by the Serb diaspora and caters to its needs (Nettelfield. p. 185. [5]). That said, it is not an RS site. On Savich, i don't really care about his ethnic background. What i do care about is the quality of his research and writings. Savich has come under stinging critique by the likes of historian Marko Hoare who has labeled him an "amateur historian" and noted many discrepancies and problems in Savich's works [6]. The inclusion of sources from Savich in wiki articles would be problematic to say the least. Even when ones looks at the Savich article, sure he has cited a bibliography of RS, thing is he has footnoted nothing and who the heck knows whether what he wrote matches his sources, as one cannot doublecheck. On the other matter, I wasn't sure which was the SPC source you referred too, but i'm guessing that it’s the one i called a WP:PRIMARY in my previous comment. Most of the PDF document is a copy and paste of statements from the clergy etc. Even with the inclusion on one of its pages of a Fisk article, what he describes about the aftermath in 1999 has been noted in RS and covered by other scholarly sources later in time which you used. Write the section better before adding it again to the article. The bit about WW2 and the Ottoman era stays out unless you or anyone else can definitely produce sources that are RS (page numbers included). Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sadko, this source Destruction of Kosovo's People and Heritage Under NATO's Watch [7] is WP:PRIMARY. If you look at page 1 at the bottom it has Berkeley Kolo of Serbian- American Sisters as its ource. In works that give a full citation for it [8], it mentions that and also that its ultimately sourced as being a publication from the Serbian Unity Congress. This is a Serb diaspora organisation. That does not meet WP:SECONDARY by any means.Resnjari (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, why did you remove well-sourced content? The denial of the crime must be stopped, this is already too much. Serbian heritage, and even its destruction, has a far longer history in Kosovo and it is logical that it should be chronologically first. Also, there are the only UNESCO monuments, as the most significant.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Savoy Palace

I suggest that the Savoy Palace, destroyed during the Peasants' Revolt, should be added to list for the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

History

The social and economic changes brought by the natives act of 1913 in South Africa 2A03:2880:31FF:77:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

not to forget

the fire that destroyed most georgian architecture in downtown toronto, resulting in a rebuild of redbrick houses with small windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.193.14 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing IDF destruction of Palestinian sites in Gaza

How should the destruction of sites in Gaza in Oct-Dec 2023 (as of my writing) be included? Very old and culturally significant mosques and churches, as well as museums and court buildings with historical and legal records, have been damaged and destroyed by the ongoing bombing. Cf https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1216200754/gaza-heritage-sites-destroyed-israel Moonspiders (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the kind of destruction that ought to be covered by this article. I've added a high-level figure based on the NPR story and the report. It would help helpful to pull out individual examples and add them to the article. I also think that this topic could have a standalone article which is linked to from here. I do not have the time or energy to do the topic justice at the moment. If no one else has started a page by January, I may get the ball rolling. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Francis Scott Key Bridge (Baltimore)

Does the bridge (recently destroyed in a boat accident) count as "heritage" for the purposes of this list? It was in a movie scene IIRC.

The Twin Towers are on this list; what makes them "heritage"? Ernest Macomb (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

All I could find was "The World Trade Center was one of the most striking American implementations of the architectural ethic of Le Corbusier and was the seminal expression of Yamasaki's gothic modernist tendencies." not that the buildings had recieved any official heritage status, won any awards, or whether the architect Minoru Yamasaki had won any awards for this design in particular. Hence I will go forth and remove them from the list. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Arrangement

Within each country section, should the events be chronological or alphabetical? In my opinion, chronological is better as some events, like the Dissolution of the Monasteries, affected more than one site, so it is unclear where they would fit on an alphabetical list. DougieMcC (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)