Talk:Forest swastika

Date of the image
Can the picture be precisely dated? Circeus 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The source I got it from was the second reference listed . I suppose that you could send an e-mail request for information on the photograph, but I presume that it was taken at some point in 2000 during the period of the year that it was visible. GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That image was taken on November 14, 2000 according to, who had it on display already on June 18, 2001. Lupo 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PD pic
I tried finding this on NASA World Wind, without much luck. Does anyone know the precise latitude and longitude?--Pharos 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the newspaper articles I can find give the location that exactly. Also bear in mind that the thing only showed for a few weeks per year, and given that it's five years on and there's been no new mention, I assume that this felling attempt was more successful than the 1995 one, so it'll be pretty hard to spot. The fact that it went unnoticed for so long should give some indication of how hard it is to find. :) GeeJo  (t) (c) &bull;  16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, World Wind has data from several different times of year and even one data set that goes back to 1990, so I thought it might be worth a shot. The database identified two Zernikows in Germany, one more-or-less north of Berlin and one northwest of Berlin.  My best guess from the conflicting news reports was the first one, but I'm not even sure of that.--Pharos 06:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's Zernikow in the Uckermark/Landkreis Uckermark. Coordinates are 53.38N, 13.75E. See also or  for maps. Lupo 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Utterly destroyed now, then?


 * That's the wrong area. The Berliner Zeitung places it in the Kutzerower Wald ("wald" means forest) near Zernikow.  I believe that would be the large forest region here (see how the town of Kutzerow is nearby).  I looked over this Google Maps satellite photo for a while, but couldn't find anything (it may be the wrong season, or it may have been taken after it was successfully removed).  It's possible someone with keener eyes might have more luck.  Unfortunately, NASA World Wind, which has PD photos, doesn't have nearly the detail level for this spot.--Pharos 15:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My best bet would be here. Obviously, if one'd fell the whole swastika, there'd be a _new_ swastika, so it makes sense only to trim part of it, making the structure unidentifiable. It looks as if the notable north-south gaps in the forest could've been the upper and lower arm of the swastika, so it makes sense. doco ( ☏ ) 03:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about here? It appears to have a similar shape and trees that have been fallen.  Guy M 12:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

YTMND reference?
This image has been the topic of the popular YTMND fad "OMG Secret Nazi Forest!" (www.ytmnd.com/wiki/Secret_Nazi) I'm considering adding a reference to it, however, I do not wish to compromise this artcle's "good article" status. Are there any objections? Ziiv 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The link to YTMND has been added and removed about a half-dozen times so far. I've no strong feelings one way or the other, but be aware that someone is likely to come along and revert it if its added again. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 05:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be me, then. YTMND fads are of pretty much no relevance other than  to YTMNDers, and they have their own Wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's like saying physics articles are of no relevance other than to physicists, video game articles are of no relevance other than to gamers, etc. Even if your statement is true, which I maintain it is not, YTMNDers use Wikipedia (me, for example) and if something I was interested enough to be reading about had also been the subject of a YTMND, I would be interested in knowing. The fact that you don't care for YTMND does not make the fact that a subject was popular on YTMND irrelevant. stufff 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to keep the debate going, I think it's worth pointing out that it was the YTMND site that caused a lot of people to gain interest in the subject to begin with. ShadowMan1od 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to stop the debate, you'd need reputable independent sources to back that claim. Guy 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit being an ass. I never would have known about this forest if not for YTMND, and I'm sure most of the internet would agree. 71.113.254.254 04:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you hate freedom? SockMonkeh 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Such is the problem with Wikipedia. ShadowMan1od 18:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

YTMND fads have basically no meaning to anyone other then other YTMND users, it would be pointless to add it to the page because it's yirreverent. Babrook 9:31, January 23 2007 (UTC)
 * I also first heard about it on YTMND. The question is whether YTMND is a big enough fad to justify mentioning it here. I think if the mainstream press talks about YTMND, specifically the forest, then it justifies the recognition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.67.193 (talk • contribs).


 * "Yirreverence" notwithstanding, mentioning of the YTMND phenomenon would strengthen the article on the internet meme and its subsequent knowledge base; providing a clear example of an abstract subject benefits that pursuit of information. Professionalism dictates the inclusion of all relevant information while maintaining a currently forsaken paragon of objectivity. .Absolution. 12:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm very late commenting on this, but I was kind of surprised that there is no mention of the YTMND fad in the article. Personally I find it relevant, though as stated before it has never been referenced by any reliable sources. There is a "confirmed" Know Your Meme article, if that makes any difference (maybe not). 68.110.187.48 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious statement
The article says "For a few weeks every year in the autumn and in the spring, the colour of the larch leaves would change, contrasting with the deep green of the pine forest. The short duration...". Is this sourced? I think it may be incorrect editorial speculation.

Larches go yellow in the autumn, and shed their needles. For the entire winter they look like dead trees - they are brown, the colour of their bark. In the spring, they gain new needles, and are initially a pale green, which slowly comes to a close match to other trees.

Hence, the pattern would be clearly visible from autumn to spring. (In Scotland, many winter visitors comment on the large numbers of dead trees in forestry areas). Notinasnaid 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement is from the CNN article, which states:
 * As the normally green leaves of the larches change color against their evergreen background for a few weeks each autumn and spring, they create a remarkably clear swastika shape in the tree tops. But it is only visible from heights above about 1,000 feet. (emphasis mine)
 * If they're incorrect, feel free to replace the duration with a sourced alternative. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, it's possible that the swastika is only visible while the foliage is yellow, before it's shed and the larches become a non-descript brown that may not contrast very well against the surrounding trees. Since there don't seem to be any pictures remaining of how the forest looked at other times of year, it's difficult to say with any certainty. For now I guess we'll have to go along with CNN's description. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Forest Swastika in Eki Naryn
Does anyone think the source itself is jumping to conclusions regarding this second forest swastika? Just looking over the wiki page on the swastika you'll see that it was a popular religous symbol in that part of the world well before it was used by the nazis and that in it's original form it wasn't tilted 45 degrees and was reversed from the nazi version, which is exactly how the sourced article described the 2nd forest swastika. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.162.151 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what does it mean that the NYT "falsely reported" on it? Did they later retract the article? Because otherwise that phrase doesn't make a lot of sense. --Selianth (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I've looked in here because I wondered exactly the same thing. The first sentence alone caused me to think that the NYT had reported on something which didn't actually exist.  But then we're given the dimensions of it.  Does it mean rather that some of the facts in the NYT article are inaccurate?  It needs some clarification, i.e. if something in the NYT article is amiss we need to be told what - otherwise the "falsely" is just left hanging there without explanation, and leads the reader to ask where falsity enters into the equation. Draggleduck (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit history shows that the word "falsely" was added here as vandalism, now reverted. --Lexein (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Delisting as GA
It's a nice article, but due to length issues, I don't really see this as being good article material. I'm delisting the article for now, and if there are comments, please respond here or at my user talk page.  Nish kid 64  19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it was nice while it lasted :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Size
I'm changing the size listed in the article. 60 m2 is a square with sides only about 7.75 meters long, and that seems awfully small, so I checked the sizes listed for the Brandenburg swastika in the sources used in the article:

The most likely number I can see from this is 3,600-3,700 m2, so I'm updating the article with 3,600 m2.  W ODU P  01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 60 m is the dimension that makes sense here. As usual people get confused by square-meters and meters-square. Looking at the picture and the number of trees and the size one would expect for an average larch, the size would be about 60 by 60 meters, or 3600 m^2. (So the Telegraph meant 60 yards square) :)1812ahill (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic
There was an article in National Geographic on this back in the 80s, in case anyone wants to look it up. Tarkaan (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannot correct a boo-boo
I tagged this unsourced statement with the tag:

"History It is unclear how the trees came to be planted and arranged in such a fashion. It has been suggested by whom? that it was laid out in 1937 by locals. . ."

As you can see, I used the wrong brackets. The article won't allow me to change it, saying that it can only be edited "In source mode". However, I don't know what that means and there's nothing to be found by searching "WP: source mode". Help? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Does this edit get what you wanted? BTW, you can turn off the visual editor.  I find it just gets in my way, at least in its current state.  To turn it off, go to Preferences / Gadgets and tick "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface". TJRC (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly so, and thank you for your tip. I was caught unaware by these WP changes. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How old
Something failed: typically its possible to determine age precisely by counting tree-rings. But nothing mentioned about that and nothing about age at all. --Itu (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but still not said how they found out. --Itu (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Forest swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130723054843/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/WORLD/europe/12/04/germany.swastika.reut/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/12/04/germany.swastika.reut/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071027110415/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/30/wtree30.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/30/wtree30.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates?
What are the coordinates for these trees? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like people were discussing it above, back in 06-07. Seems there were never official coordinates given, or photos definitive enough to say for certain. Coupled with the fact the colors change only a few weeks every year, it seems to have escaped any public satellite imagery.
 * However, my best guess is that is is located here (coordinates 53.40536°N, 13.72786°W), based on similarities of this area to the most famous photo of the grove.
 * • The notch of grass at the top left flanked by trees matches a similar area, along with the strip of dead brown trees that narrows as it crosses up and to the right
 * • The section of dense, darker green trees in the top right with the patch of larches just beyond also seems line up with the satellite image
 * • Additionally, a patch of lighter-colored trees right on the marker is vaguely square-shaped
 * I went ahead and added the coordinates to the article, since this topic doesn't see much active discussion... Even though this could never be sourced (as far as I've seen), I think having it there with language qualifying its authenticity is better than not PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)