This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Tsar Oak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 July 2006 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Białowieża Forest. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Dąb Car page were merged into Białowieża Forest. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
How come that, with so many edit wars around here, this article remains untouched? Every child knows that the true name of the forest is Puszcza Bialowieska! But seriously, only joking. What I really wanted to ask is whether this article needs some info on the fact that that the whole forest has been a National Park since 15th century? This makes it one of the oldest National Parks still existing... Halibutt 14:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I added a piece from UNESCO site. I understand, the information from there is in public domain, unless specifically indicated (like GIS data, which requires donation).
Mikkalai 19:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've moved this page from Belavezhskaya Pushcha to Bialowieza Forest for the following reasons:
Of course, both Polish and Belarussian names of the forest are still mentioned in the opening paragraph. -- Kpalion 07:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I moved it back:
According to the
UNESCO website you keep referring to, the official name of the forest is Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. But I'm not sure whether we really have to copy the strange politically correct solutions of UNESCO; according to the same website, Jerusalem is a separate country!
I also can see no reason for two separate articles about one forest which happens to be divided by a political border. It would be like having one article about
Canadian Rocky Mountains and one about
US Rocky Mountains.
I suppose that my proposition is the most English you can get. Belovezhskaya Pushcha is just a romanization of the Belarussian name. I'm not going to repeat myself, see explanation above.
And is Google the only arbiter on the English language?
--
Kpalion 08:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not going to argue with you; perhaps you're right. The case for Belovezhskaya Pushcha is that a greater part of the foretst is on the Belorussian side. I'd only like to say thay we were talking about hte same UNESCO site - and it does say Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. For some strange reason the Belarussian name (used for the Belarussian part of the forest) has only been romanized but the Polish has been was translated. This seems quite awkward to me. Maybe it's beacuse Poles are used to translating foregin names into Polish (e.g. we do translate Tsarskoye Selo as Carskie Sioło) so they also tend to translate names into English. But if we assume that the Belarussian name is what the English speakers use for the whole forest, than it's OK. -- Kpalion 21:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You guys are too funny, and Mikkalai, can you bring back one of those mines from the western front? You know it does not really matter what the name is, that is supposed to be the value of redirects, you can makes all variations of the names redirects and bold face them in the lead-in to the main article. I vote for the Russian name, after all wasn't it the Imperial Tsars that originally named it? (If not excuse me for starting another controversy). Anyway, whatever you slavs decide to do in your nationalistic fervour remember that really it isn't Polish or Belarusian or Russian or anything else, it is just part of our common world heritage (and beautiful, I visited the Belarusian part of it three years ago around May 1). — © Alex756 05:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ded Moroz is not an invention of the Soviet Union as far as I can tell. see: http://www.santalady.com/gg/moroz.html — © Alex756 07:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Britannica name for this article is Belovezhskaya Forest. Grue 14:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me why the name is rendered in a Polish spelling with all the stresses and apostrophies and whatever-those-things-are-called on top of the letters. To borrow KNewman arguments, some people are not even sure how to pronounce it, let alone how to write it. And some of them don't have Polish language support, so all they see is little cubes instead of certain letters. I believe the Russian word is better known. Another option is to English it as Belavezha Forest or White Tower Forest or whatever. -- Ghirlandajo 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The Brtiannica article [2] is indeed called: Belovezhskaya Forest and starts like this:
Belovezhskaya Forest, also called Belovezh Forest and Bialowieza Forest , Belarusian: Belovezhskaya Pushcha , Polish: Puszcza Bialowieska
forest in western Belarus and eastern Poland. It is one of the largest surviving areas of primeval ...
I think this alone is enough to settle the debate because I never saw a difference between the prevailing usage in English media (I use LexisNexis Major paper search) and the title picked by Britannica. If anyone's in doubt, I will do a media search. So, whoever has time, please list this at WP:RM or I will do it myself when I get to this. -- Irpen 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
While it was mentioned before, I don't think enough was made of the fact that the Belarusian section of the reserve is nearly 18 times bigger than the relatively tiny section in Poland. Given that, it simply seems inexplicable that this article remains under the Polish (or Polish/English name). I understand some think the name comes from a Polish town, but there is also evidence that it is named after a location in present-day Belarus. At any rate, both countries call it something different--but one of them has over 90% of the reserve, and the other less than 10%. I'd say that gives the Belarusian name pride of place. -- James Honan-Hallock 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
My move: the Polish name is Puszcza Białowieska, the belarussian name is <whatever>. The English name is "Bialowieza Forest". A title that mixes them is simply ridiculous and that move was made without any discussion. I didn't notice it simply because the article edited very rarely and it didin't pop up in my wathclist.
So I reverted to the previous version which, you Halibutt should remember, was achieved after long and frustrating talks, so I am not giving it up easily now. mikka (t) 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that, particularly in a case where no one foreign-language name should be preferred, common English usage should determine the page name. While the forest is perhaps not often discussed in English, to the extent it is, it is certainly without Polish language diacritics. As someone who is taking university-level Polish, I have nothing against diacritics like ł and ż, but while they mean something to me they mean nothing to 99% of English speakers. Given this, and the fact that most of this forest is in a country which uses the Cyrillic alphabet (whether for Russian or, less commonly, Belarusian), I don't think it makes much sense to include them in the title. By all means, they should be in the Polish name in the first sentence. My concern with the UNESCO name, though, is that an English speaker would pronounce it "Bee-al-o-wheeze-a", which is far from how it's pronounced in either Polish or Belarusian. The main thing is the lack of an implication of the "zh" sound signified by ż, which exists in the Polish, Belarusian, and Russian pronounciations. Any thoughts? -- James Honan-Hallock 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Text from several articles of individual trees in Bialowieza Forest has been merged to this article. Oz Lawyer 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Białowieża Forest is Belarus ethnic area. Maybe a group of Russian Starovyer is living there, but it's rather not the case of Starovyer. Xx236 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I added coordinates with the "coord" template, showing up at the page top, and in second infobox, since I noticed fields for them there. I don't know if the coords in the infobox would get picked up by Google Maps / Earth, so I also used the coord template, which I know does. I wish there was an easy way to footnote or somehow reference the coord template so you could point to the source of the coordinates. I figured with a forest that crossing an international boundary there might be some disagreement over which coordinates would be best. Since I don't know a way to show my source in the page itself, I'm doing it here. These coordinates are from: NGA GNS gazetteer (I searched for "Belovezhskaya Pushcha"). I'm not sure if I can link directly to one of the search results pages, but this might work: Belovezhskaya Pushcha (BGN Standard. Pfly ( talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "It is the only remaining part of the immense forest which once spread across the European Plain." Naturally Białowieża Forest is not the only forest in Europe. It is not even the only virgin forest. It is not even the biggest virgin forest in the European Plain if the plain is defined to stretch to the Ural Mountains: there are vast pristine forests in Russia, (for example, see Virgin Komi Forests). But it would be safe to say, for example: Białowieża is the biggest virgin forest in Central Europe. Krasanen ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
..."because it is relevant in the context" (according to the comment recently added after 1410). Can Richard or someone else explain what this means? All dates are relevant in the context, otherwise we wouldn't mention them at all, but why does this particular one require linking?-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should integrate the two photos from the mreged page:
Perhaps the external links as well:
Note the interlang links:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the leftovers from the merge from Tsar Oak:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There's also:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
the statement "Soviet marauders continued the slaughter until February 1919" cannot be true as the Soviets were too far from the forest till 1920! Yogi555 ( talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this is such an important location (historically and politically), it would be very useful if there was a map to indicate where along the Poland/Belarus border this forest is situated. I imagine a map of the border or the two countries probably exists on the Commons, the forest just needs to be located on it, with an indication of how much of it is located in each country. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There's now a map in the infobox. Ajh1492 ( talk) 06:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Re.
this edit:
Unless you can prove that the Belarusian name is the official one, stop reverting my edits. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Ajh1492, please desist from pushing for an edit war on this article. If, as per your comment below, you intend to create a separate article for the region in question as per the discussion to split it below, be certain that it is accepted via the proper channels. In the meantime, the accusations of POV push from TaalVerbeteraar are completely unfounded as the infobox for this article should adhere to Wikipedia geographical templates. In this case, the closest is probably that of being a forest. Ultimately, that is irrelevant as, if you check the assigned values for these parameters, regional type templates all adhere to the basics of native name 1, native language 1, native name 2, native language 2, etc. The parameter guidelines are explicit: the nomenclature is to adhere to the list of ISO 639-1 codes and NOT transliterations/transcriptions into Latin where the native language/s are non-Latin.
Belarusian script is Cyrillic, therefore, if concessions are to be made allowing the Belarusian form of the name, it must appear in Belarusian Cyrillic. Whether it appeals to you or not, no matter how you look at it, Belarus has two official languages - being Belarusian and Russian - therefore the Russian version of the name must also be included. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian. All other names go into the article lede. Ajh1492 ( talk) 07:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If the UNESCO does not specifically say on their own website that the name is in "Russian" (!) and "Polish language", all claims that the World Heritage Site is written in "Russian" and "Polish", belong to you, not to them. Please use the UNESCO name as is, without commenting on it. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC) (direct quote)
(end of quote)
Please stop with original research once and for all. ( sic) That's excellent advice which I think you should practice and not merely preach.
Ajh1492 and Poeticbent, I don't think I've come across such a blatantly nationalistic POV push posturing as being good practice before... and that's saying a lot. Which particular 'good practice' are you referring to, Ajh1492? This one? This one?
'Protected' applies to the area as an important world site: it does NOT translate as protecting your interpretation of what 'alt_name' means. Where, on the UNESCO site, Poeticbent, does it state that they are using THE be all and end all nomenclature, or that all information pertaining to that protected area is fully dealt with in their very brief 'long definition'? Please take a look at the searches from 2005 on this page. Any changes to what it yielded then are minimal. Do UNESCO declare that are presenting more than an outline the importance of the area to world heritage and are giving a very short, short historical context?
Where, as pointed out by TaalVerbeteraar, does the 'protected' template state that Latin transliterations should be used for native and other alternative names? Read the description text again with care, then take a look at this talk page going back to its inception and show me precisely where any consensus on the nomenclature was reached at any point, much less anything that even begins to support Ajh1492's self-confessed 'no Cyrillic' policy. We're writing our own policy now, are we (including splitting the article based on blatant POV entirely removed from the content)? That's plain, underhanded subterfuge and is antithetical to all Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I've already compiled an extraordinarily exhaustive list of 'under the radar' practice articles with regards to Slavic subject matter. There's only one protected area of forest, therefore it constitutes one article and one article only. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The treatment of transboundary protected areas on wikipedia is inconsistent currently. Pieniny National Park (Poland) and Pieniny National Park (Slovakia) are separate articles, while Białowieża Forest is one. Lower Oder Valley International Park (for the whole) and Lower Oder Valley National Park (for one of the parts) as two separate articles is yet another varian of organising things. Should not it all be taken to some uniform variant, whichever one makes more sense?.. AntonBryl ( talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Go have fun, I've split the two national parks into their own articles pulling from a couple sources. Ajh1492 ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to Poeticbent
Apologies for any personal attacks. I could take the suggestion that I lack the requisite skills to be capable of discerning between talk page and article page history as intentional effrontery, but I'll choose to disregard it. I checked and analysed the content of all the pages very carefully before drawing any conclusions.
Please refer to this history on the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park article. Now refer to this history of this newly 'split' article (Białowieża Forest with the majority of body of existing article developed by people other than those disputing nomenclature syphoned off).
2012-07-15 21:32 to 2013-10-17 16:41 Poeticbent edit total = 8
Substance of contributions by edit:
Even more interesting is that the current version of your 'split' article suddenly contains the Belarusian AND Russian Cyrillic names, along with transliterations, in the lead. What happened to your 'Russian has nothing to do with it' POV dispute over the nomenclature? If this was rationale for splitting the article then I can only interpret it as being an admission that Cyrillic and Russian DO have a lot to do with the article. So much for any arguments as to a need for a split due to an unreasonable POV push from the bad guys and red flags. What I can see is that the bad guys wrote the article you've wrested for your own POV push.
In all fairness, if you take a look at Ajh1492 plethora of edits, the substance of his contributions to the article has been in over-the-top infobox POV pushes which appear back to back with your reverts. If you were so concerned about neutrality, how is it that you missed his complete misinterpretation of infobox parameters, excessive anti-everything Cyrillic and didn't bother to revert any of his 'contributions'? After all, he was at the centre of dispute over the infobox, not TaalVerbeteraar. It is a gross misrepresentation to accuse TaalVerbeteraar of plastering anything. I'll parse Ajh1492 'contributions' separately for my submission to Dispute resolution as it has, unfortunately, gone too far to attempt any other form of neutral party intervention.
As regards the call for a split, yes it was initiated by AntonBryl on 17 October. What was his involvement? Prior that, he had never been involved with the article at all: no edits or appearances on the talk page. You responded on the same day in order to point out the articles to be created. Since then, AntonBryl has only emerged to fix a minor problem in the infobox of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park (that's a grand total of one edit post his talk page). Well, the entire 'consensus' reasoning is on the talk page, although I fail to see how it can be understood to be Wikipedia:CONSBUILD in any shape or form. Your 'natural progression' fails to wash, either. There's a distinct difference between a true consensus for a split and hijacking and dragging off what you, yourself, have admitted was a fairly stable article in need of some development. Yes, I promise that I have most certainly noted that Ajh1492 had left just enough behind to not leave the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park article as a stub... by a whisker. What's been taken for your further development was in no shape or form developed by any of the three of you and the proof is in the editing history. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The locator map showing where the forest is in "Europe" is not helpful. What's needed is a map of the forest, or a locator map showing its context in Poland (and Belarus?). Sca ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Białowieża Forest. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Apologies! I actually had one of the two references you used in your edit open in my browser - I'm just waiting to use it. – Vami _IV✠ 17:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Tsar Oak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 July 2006 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Białowieża Forest. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Dąb Car page were merged into Białowieża Forest. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
How come that, with so many edit wars around here, this article remains untouched? Every child knows that the true name of the forest is Puszcza Bialowieska! But seriously, only joking. What I really wanted to ask is whether this article needs some info on the fact that that the whole forest has been a National Park since 15th century? This makes it one of the oldest National Parks still existing... Halibutt 14:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I added a piece from UNESCO site. I understand, the information from there is in public domain, unless specifically indicated (like GIS data, which requires donation).
Mikkalai 19:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I've moved this page from Belavezhskaya Pushcha to Bialowieza Forest for the following reasons:
Of course, both Polish and Belarussian names of the forest are still mentioned in the opening paragraph. -- Kpalion 07:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I moved it back:
According to the
UNESCO website you keep referring to, the official name of the forest is Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. But I'm not sure whether we really have to copy the strange politically correct solutions of UNESCO; according to the same website, Jerusalem is a separate country!
I also can see no reason for two separate articles about one forest which happens to be divided by a political border. It would be like having one article about
Canadian Rocky Mountains and one about
US Rocky Mountains.
I suppose that my proposition is the most English you can get. Belovezhskaya Pushcha is just a romanization of the Belarussian name. I'm not going to repeat myself, see explanation above.
And is Google the only arbiter on the English language?
--
Kpalion 08:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not going to argue with you; perhaps you're right. The case for Belovezhskaya Pushcha is that a greater part of the foretst is on the Belorussian side. I'd only like to say thay we were talking about hte same UNESCO site - and it does say Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. For some strange reason the Belarussian name (used for the Belarussian part of the forest) has only been romanized but the Polish has been was translated. This seems quite awkward to me. Maybe it's beacuse Poles are used to translating foregin names into Polish (e.g. we do translate Tsarskoye Selo as Carskie Sioło) so they also tend to translate names into English. But if we assume that the Belarussian name is what the English speakers use for the whole forest, than it's OK. -- Kpalion 21:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You guys are too funny, and Mikkalai, can you bring back one of those mines from the western front? You know it does not really matter what the name is, that is supposed to be the value of redirects, you can makes all variations of the names redirects and bold face them in the lead-in to the main article. I vote for the Russian name, after all wasn't it the Imperial Tsars that originally named it? (If not excuse me for starting another controversy). Anyway, whatever you slavs decide to do in your nationalistic fervour remember that really it isn't Polish or Belarusian or Russian or anything else, it is just part of our common world heritage (and beautiful, I visited the Belarusian part of it three years ago around May 1). — © Alex756 05:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ded Moroz is not an invention of the Soviet Union as far as I can tell. see: http://www.santalady.com/gg/moroz.html — © Alex756 07:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Britannica name for this article is Belovezhskaya Forest. Grue 14:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me why the name is rendered in a Polish spelling with all the stresses and apostrophies and whatever-those-things-are-called on top of the letters. To borrow KNewman arguments, some people are not even sure how to pronounce it, let alone how to write it. And some of them don't have Polish language support, so all they see is little cubes instead of certain letters. I believe the Russian word is better known. Another option is to English it as Belavezha Forest or White Tower Forest or whatever. -- Ghirlandajo 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The Brtiannica article [2] is indeed called: Belovezhskaya Forest and starts like this:
Belovezhskaya Forest, also called Belovezh Forest and Bialowieza Forest , Belarusian: Belovezhskaya Pushcha , Polish: Puszcza Bialowieska
forest in western Belarus and eastern Poland. It is one of the largest surviving areas of primeval ...
I think this alone is enough to settle the debate because I never saw a difference between the prevailing usage in English media (I use LexisNexis Major paper search) and the title picked by Britannica. If anyone's in doubt, I will do a media search. So, whoever has time, please list this at WP:RM or I will do it myself when I get to this. -- Irpen 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
While it was mentioned before, I don't think enough was made of the fact that the Belarusian section of the reserve is nearly 18 times bigger than the relatively tiny section in Poland. Given that, it simply seems inexplicable that this article remains under the Polish (or Polish/English name). I understand some think the name comes from a Polish town, but there is also evidence that it is named after a location in present-day Belarus. At any rate, both countries call it something different--but one of them has over 90% of the reserve, and the other less than 10%. I'd say that gives the Belarusian name pride of place. -- James Honan-Hallock 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
My move: the Polish name is Puszcza Białowieska, the belarussian name is <whatever>. The English name is "Bialowieza Forest". A title that mixes them is simply ridiculous and that move was made without any discussion. I didn't notice it simply because the article edited very rarely and it didin't pop up in my wathclist.
So I reverted to the previous version which, you Halibutt should remember, was achieved after long and frustrating talks, so I am not giving it up easily now. mikka (t) 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that, particularly in a case where no one foreign-language name should be preferred, common English usage should determine the page name. While the forest is perhaps not often discussed in English, to the extent it is, it is certainly without Polish language diacritics. As someone who is taking university-level Polish, I have nothing against diacritics like ł and ż, but while they mean something to me they mean nothing to 99% of English speakers. Given this, and the fact that most of this forest is in a country which uses the Cyrillic alphabet (whether for Russian or, less commonly, Belarusian), I don't think it makes much sense to include them in the title. By all means, they should be in the Polish name in the first sentence. My concern with the UNESCO name, though, is that an English speaker would pronounce it "Bee-al-o-wheeze-a", which is far from how it's pronounced in either Polish or Belarusian. The main thing is the lack of an implication of the "zh" sound signified by ż, which exists in the Polish, Belarusian, and Russian pronounciations. Any thoughts? -- James Honan-Hallock 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Text from several articles of individual trees in Bialowieza Forest has been merged to this article. Oz Lawyer 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Białowieża Forest is Belarus ethnic area. Maybe a group of Russian Starovyer is living there, but it's rather not the case of Starovyer. Xx236 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I added coordinates with the "coord" template, showing up at the page top, and in second infobox, since I noticed fields for them there. I don't know if the coords in the infobox would get picked up by Google Maps / Earth, so I also used the coord template, which I know does. I wish there was an easy way to footnote or somehow reference the coord template so you could point to the source of the coordinates. I figured with a forest that crossing an international boundary there might be some disagreement over which coordinates would be best. Since I don't know a way to show my source in the page itself, I'm doing it here. These coordinates are from: NGA GNS gazetteer (I searched for "Belovezhskaya Pushcha"). I'm not sure if I can link directly to one of the search results pages, but this might work: Belovezhskaya Pushcha (BGN Standard. Pfly ( talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "It is the only remaining part of the immense forest which once spread across the European Plain." Naturally Białowieża Forest is not the only forest in Europe. It is not even the only virgin forest. It is not even the biggest virgin forest in the European Plain if the plain is defined to stretch to the Ural Mountains: there are vast pristine forests in Russia, (for example, see Virgin Komi Forests). But it would be safe to say, for example: Białowieża is the biggest virgin forest in Central Europe. Krasanen ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
..."because it is relevant in the context" (according to the comment recently added after 1410). Can Richard or someone else explain what this means? All dates are relevant in the context, otherwise we wouldn't mention them at all, but why does this particular one require linking?-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should integrate the two photos from the mreged page:
Perhaps the external links as well:
Note the interlang links:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Note the leftovers from the merge from Tsar Oak:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There's also:
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
the statement "Soviet marauders continued the slaughter until February 1919" cannot be true as the Soviets were too far from the forest till 1920! Yogi555 ( talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this is such an important location (historically and politically), it would be very useful if there was a map to indicate where along the Poland/Belarus border this forest is situated. I imagine a map of the border or the two countries probably exists on the Commons, the forest just needs to be located on it, with an indication of how much of it is located in each country. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There's now a map in the infobox. Ajh1492 ( talk) 06:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Re.
this edit:
Unless you can prove that the Belarusian name is the official one, stop reverting my edits. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 10:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Ajh1492, please desist from pushing for an edit war on this article. If, as per your comment below, you intend to create a separate article for the region in question as per the discussion to split it below, be certain that it is accepted via the proper channels. In the meantime, the accusations of POV push from TaalVerbeteraar are completely unfounded as the infobox for this article should adhere to Wikipedia geographical templates. In this case, the closest is probably that of being a forest. Ultimately, that is irrelevant as, if you check the assigned values for these parameters, regional type templates all adhere to the basics of native name 1, native language 1, native name 2, native language 2, etc. The parameter guidelines are explicit: the nomenclature is to adhere to the list of ISO 639-1 codes and NOT transliterations/transcriptions into Latin where the native language/s are non-Latin.
Belarusian script is Cyrillic, therefore, if concessions are to be made allowing the Belarusian form of the name, it must appear in Belarusian Cyrillic. Whether it appeals to you or not, no matter how you look at it, Belarus has two official languages - being Belarusian and Russian - therefore the Russian version of the name must also be included. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been saying since the beginning that the alt names field in the infobox should be only stated as the name is inscribed in the UNESCO WHS list (Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Białowieża Forest), nothing more, nothing less no cyrillic. I don't personally care if Belovezhskaya Pushcha is transliterated belarussian or russian. All other names go into the article lede. Ajh1492 ( talk) 07:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
If the UNESCO does not specifically say on their own website that the name is in "Russian" (!) and "Polish language", all claims that the World Heritage Site is written in "Russian" and "Polish", belong to you, not to them. Please use the UNESCO name as is, without commenting on it. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC) (direct quote)
(end of quote)
Please stop with original research once and for all. ( sic) That's excellent advice which I think you should practice and not merely preach.
Ajh1492 and Poeticbent, I don't think I've come across such a blatantly nationalistic POV push posturing as being good practice before... and that's saying a lot. Which particular 'good practice' are you referring to, Ajh1492? This one? This one?
'Protected' applies to the area as an important world site: it does NOT translate as protecting your interpretation of what 'alt_name' means. Where, on the UNESCO site, Poeticbent, does it state that they are using THE be all and end all nomenclature, or that all information pertaining to that protected area is fully dealt with in their very brief 'long definition'? Please take a look at the searches from 2005 on this page. Any changes to what it yielded then are minimal. Do UNESCO declare that are presenting more than an outline the importance of the area to world heritage and are giving a very short, short historical context?
Where, as pointed out by TaalVerbeteraar, does the 'protected' template state that Latin transliterations should be used for native and other alternative names? Read the description text again with care, then take a look at this talk page going back to its inception and show me precisely where any consensus on the nomenclature was reached at any point, much less anything that even begins to support Ajh1492's self-confessed 'no Cyrillic' policy. We're writing our own policy now, are we (including splitting the article based on blatant POV entirely removed from the content)? That's plain, underhanded subterfuge and is antithetical to all Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I've already compiled an extraordinarily exhaustive list of 'under the radar' practice articles with regards to Slavic subject matter. There's only one protected area of forest, therefore it constitutes one article and one article only. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 00:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The treatment of transboundary protected areas on wikipedia is inconsistent currently. Pieniny National Park (Poland) and Pieniny National Park (Slovakia) are separate articles, while Białowieża Forest is one. Lower Oder Valley International Park (for the whole) and Lower Oder Valley National Park (for one of the parts) as two separate articles is yet another varian of organising things. Should not it all be taken to some uniform variant, whichever one makes more sense?.. AntonBryl ( talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Go have fun, I've split the two national parks into their own articles pulling from a couple sources. Ajh1492 ( talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to Poeticbent
Apologies for any personal attacks. I could take the suggestion that I lack the requisite skills to be capable of discerning between talk page and article page history as intentional effrontery, but I'll choose to disregard it. I checked and analysed the content of all the pages very carefully before drawing any conclusions.
Please refer to this history on the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park article. Now refer to this history of this newly 'split' article (Białowieża Forest with the majority of body of existing article developed by people other than those disputing nomenclature syphoned off).
2012-07-15 21:32 to 2013-10-17 16:41 Poeticbent edit total = 8
Substance of contributions by edit:
Even more interesting is that the current version of your 'split' article suddenly contains the Belarusian AND Russian Cyrillic names, along with transliterations, in the lead. What happened to your 'Russian has nothing to do with it' POV dispute over the nomenclature? If this was rationale for splitting the article then I can only interpret it as being an admission that Cyrillic and Russian DO have a lot to do with the article. So much for any arguments as to a need for a split due to an unreasonable POV push from the bad guys and red flags. What I can see is that the bad guys wrote the article you've wrested for your own POV push.
In all fairness, if you take a look at Ajh1492 plethora of edits, the substance of his contributions to the article has been in over-the-top infobox POV pushes which appear back to back with your reverts. If you were so concerned about neutrality, how is it that you missed his complete misinterpretation of infobox parameters, excessive anti-everything Cyrillic and didn't bother to revert any of his 'contributions'? After all, he was at the centre of dispute over the infobox, not TaalVerbeteraar. It is a gross misrepresentation to accuse TaalVerbeteraar of plastering anything. I'll parse Ajh1492 'contributions' separately for my submission to Dispute resolution as it has, unfortunately, gone too far to attempt any other form of neutral party intervention.
As regards the call for a split, yes it was initiated by AntonBryl on 17 October. What was his involvement? Prior that, he had never been involved with the article at all: no edits or appearances on the talk page. You responded on the same day in order to point out the articles to be created. Since then, AntonBryl has only emerged to fix a minor problem in the infobox of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park (that's a grand total of one edit post his talk page). Well, the entire 'consensus' reasoning is on the talk page, although I fail to see how it can be understood to be Wikipedia:CONSBUILD in any shape or form. Your 'natural progression' fails to wash, either. There's a distinct difference between a true consensus for a split and hijacking and dragging off what you, yourself, have admitted was a fairly stable article in need of some development. Yes, I promise that I have most certainly noted that Ajh1492 had left just enough behind to not leave the Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park article as a stub... by a whisker. What's been taken for your further development was in no shape or form developed by any of the three of you and the proof is in the editing history. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The locator map showing where the forest is in "Europe" is not helpful. What's needed is a map of the forest, or a locator map showing its context in Poland (and Belarus?). Sca ( talk) 20:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Białowieża Forest. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: Apologies! I actually had one of the two references you used in your edit open in my browser - I'm just waiting to use it. – Vami _IV✠ 17:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)