Ok thanks

Yes it certainly is through, thanks Solivagant.

Well done for getting through that Jonathan Jones article. As you say it brings up some interesting questions, however he always comes across as a contrarian prig to me, I've given up reading what he writes, and as a short hand just assume that what ever he argues I will feel the opposite. Of course there will always be an exception to the rule.

The Chenonceau's castle is not included in the Loire Valley property...I Wonder how is it possible. Is there anyone who has an explanation?? Is it fair?

The castle was included in 2017.

https://whc.unesco.org/document/159664

Minor boundary modification inscribed year: 2017
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/933/

http://www.magcentre.fr/133900-chenonceau-le-chateau-des-dames-enfin-integre-au-patri moine-mondial-de-lunesco/

Thank you Jonathan, it's a smart modification

Major fire at Notre Dame de Paris.

Oof, as far as heritage disasters go this is as bad as they come.

sad news

Tragic news. Thankfully according to reporting the fire has been contained now, but the damage looks awful.

UNESCO is committed to restoring the cathedral, according to Director General Audrey Azoulay.

Extremely awful news! I am just thankful that irreplaceable artifacts and art have been saved!

I only hope the cathedral's strong vaulted roof will protect and minimize the damage of the interior from the fire as original designed. It is truly a sad news.

A number of interesting discussions are beginning to emerge regarding what the nature of the reconstruction of Notre Dame should be.
a. Should it be as near to an exact replica of its pre-fire state as we can technically achieve? With e.g the structure of the Oak beams following exactly the mediaeval pattern. Apparently, earlier renovations mean that many of the beams were not actually "original" though, whether their structural design remained exactly the same as the "original", I don't know. The loss of the original beams per se shouldn't be regarded as compromising "authenticity" (Cultures like Japan accept as normal the fact that wood will have to be regularly replaced) - but altering the design would be a different step....
b. To what extent should contemporary building techniques be incorporated. At a minimum some modern roofing materials could be used (??) if only to improve fire protection - but what about steel frames etc. How far should use of modern materials go? There are some concerns about impact on acoustics etc but. no doubt these could be overcome (and, dare one say it, even be "improved" via the use of "Acoustical Modelling"!!).
c. To what extent should completely new visible design features be incorporated. The collapsed Spire was of course Violet le Duc's own 19thC take on mediaeval spires!! One could imagine an element like Foster's Dome for the Reichstag or Pei's Louvre pyramid being incorporated in the roof or as a replacement spire? Should we have so little confidence in our ability, right and even "duty" to incorporate successfully our own period into the structure? At a much smaller level should any small features like e.g gargoyles which need replacing, follow the earlier designs or should they recognise that it has always been the tradition to incorporate the ideas of the sculptor rather than simply and slavishly copying the damaged design. Perhaps contemporary features should be limited to such minor aspects - up to modern stained glass where this has to be replaced (not the main windows apparently)??

Do WH Travellers have any views on such matters?? No doubt France will be bringing in "Heritage professionals" and UNESCO/ICOMOS will want their say - but there are likely to be a range of views even among such professionals on what constitutes "Authenticity" and how much its has to be "slavishly" achieved. I wonder which view will come through. Presumably the views of the French people will be involved - if only via their representatives before any reconstruction is approved - one might suspect that such involvement would assist the conservative "Build it exactly as it was" view?

It appears that the decision has already been "made" NOT to replace the Violet le Duc spire but, instead, to seek a contemporary design via an international competition. This article indicates that, in theory, the decision could still be to adopt the Violet le Duc spire as was - but it seems unlikely -
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/notre-dame-beloved-spire-rebuilt-155743274.html

A number of alternative views (including from Norman Foster) on how much the "reconstruction" should adopt new designs, materials and technologies -
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/even-more-beautiful-should-notre-dame-get-a-modern-spire

Anyone know why Filitosa is often referred to as a word heritage site on Corsica? Very fake marketing?

Such claims are not uncommon – usually by T List sites apparently claiming UNESCO status on that basis. Other reasons include the muddling of other "types" of UNESCO recognition such as "Biosphere Reserves" with that if WHS. We have a Forum Topic titled "It ain't necessarily so" (unused since Oct 2014) where we used to report such things!

The claim for Filitosa is notable for the fact that it isn't even on the French T List (nor has ever been so??) – and hasn't even figured in our "Aspiring" topic as a place trying to gain inscription! Nor, as far as I can make out is it in an area recognised by UNESCO for any other reason

A Google search on "Filitosa" AND "UNESCO" returns an amazing 18200 hits. Many of these are general Web sites on Corsica which cover both Filitosa and genuine UNESCO matters. But many others clearly state that Filitosa IS "listed as a World Heritage Site"

The viral nature of the Web means of course that something only has to be stated once in order to be repeated "n" times and thus become virtual "fact". But where could this claim have started?

The most apparently "reputable" source I have found is that of the guide book "Petit Futé" (which one might have hoped would have got it correct!)

One possible wrinkle is the frequent use of the phrase "classé par l'UNESCO comme l'un des sites culturels et artistiques les plus importants du monde pour la préhistoire" rather than "classé par l'UNESCO au Patrimoine Mondial de l'Humanité" – but I can't discover any other "List" under the UNESCO banner which could be the source of this distinction.

Interestingly the Official Web site for Filatosa doesn't itself claim WHS status – only that it is on the list of the "cents sites historiques d'intérêts communs aux pays de la Méditerranée." But this list can't be that significant - I haven't so far been able to access it in full!