Talk:Zapovednik

Problems
How can the first one have been created by the Soviet Union when you say in the next sentence that it was created in 1916 ... the year before the October Revolution? Daniel Case 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I went looking in the Russian wikipedia for the article there to link.

This is great. There isn't one. There is, however, a list page and a bunch of separate articles on individual zapovedniks. So anyone who wants the concept explained has to come here; while anyone who wants details on individual zapovedniks has to have a reading knowledge of Russian. We need some cross-Bering Strait coordination on this. Daniel Case 17:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Where this delirium came from?
I live and born in Russia and it was always underlined that the purpose of the zapovedniks is to preserve the wild nature. The most of article constitutes delirium and should be deleted. By the way, who is Douglas Weiner? This seems highly POV and obviously is based on the book indicated in the bottom, which name is brilliant as if Stalin and Gorbachov dreamed only of how to damage the nature.--Nixer 20:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, there appears to be a flame war! On such an innocent topic! Cool, yeah. :-( Cema 22:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nixer, I've reverted your last edit. I saw nothing in it that qualifies as so outrageously POV that it needed to be removed.


 * И, мне ясно, вы не понимаете англиский язык хорошо. книга в стати согласет с вами.


 * Also, I see from your User Talk page that you have a pattern of starting revert wars. Let's try to avoid that here, please, and reach a happy medium. Daniel Case 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article seems as self-promotiong of Douglas Weiner. It seems he boasts his importance. I think nobody read his letter. Also I will repeat that the purpose of the zapovedniks is to preserve the wild nature. So, I will delete all the delirium.--Nixer 03:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nixer, you didn't understand.


 * Заглавие книги, по-русский: Молодой Угол Свободы: Русское Сохрание Природы с Сталина до Горбачёва. Вы смотрите вашу ошыбку сейчас? Не Защита Русской Природы против Сталина и Горбачёва. Вы преувеличиваете вашего знания англиского когда утверждаете "en-3," Я думаю.


 * Now, perhaps it is self-promotional. I don't think the quote from the book is necessary. But I think it's a start for an article. We need to hear from someone else who read the book, someone else who might know the history at issue.


 * Так, Я возвращаюсь. Не беспокойтесь, не лично. Daniel Case 05:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh! I apologize. I thought it was "from Stalin and Gorbachov". Where did I get it from? Your prevous message in Russian I didnt understood.--Nixer 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what happens when I write in haste, without referring to a dictionary. I was trying to make the point that the author of the book in question was agreeing with you.


 * Later, I realized you'd misunderstood the use of the preposition "from" in that article (Don't worry; on the English-speaking end I trip over Russian prepositions all the time.)


 * In fact there are many other factual errors in the article. Treats to the zapovedniks since the collapse of the USSR caused not by new industries, but by the lack of funding and protection from criminal usage. No new industries, and of course, no overseas-based (which is fantastic).--Nixer 14:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I like this latest edit. Daniel Case 17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

One more such wholesale deletion without serious arguments, and you will be blocked. Still, I agree that a large part of the text is strange. mikka (t) 04:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Weiner book
If you'd like to independently evaluate the book in question, there is a sample chapter online. Daniel Case 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarity to U.S. Wilderness Areas?
I would like to put in something about this but I'd prefer some informed opinion. Are zapovedniks open for low-impact recreational use (camping, hiking, birding, hunting, fishing, unpowered boating etc.) as state and federal wilderness areas in the U.S. are? Are they developed for that purpose (trails, boat put-in spots)? What in the U.S. protected land system might they most be likened to in terms of permitted levels of use? Daniel Case 21:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I went and did my own research. Daniel Case 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision
As the translator into English of Feliks Shtil'mark's Istoriografiya rossiyskikh zapovednikov 1895-1995 (History of the Russian Zapovedniks 1895-1995) I'd like to revise and expand this article.

It is mostly factually correct, though there are a few errors. In particular the section 'Species' is inaccurate and the meanings of the numbers are not clear; moreover the section does not materially help readers understand the zapovednik concept, and so I propose deleting it.

The preceding paragraph beginning 'In this vein...' is of questionable relevance, and I'd like to delete it as well.

Initially more references will be added, in particular Douglas Weiner's other book, and of course Shtil'mark's, which is the nearest thing to an official history. There will also be an external link to a list of the zapovedniks, with basic statistics about each, a summary of the habitats covered, and contact details (which are being updated).

The sections on history and use will be expanded, and new sections added on the theory of zapovednost' and the international significance of the zapovednik system.

In view of the fact that the existing article is mainly about zapovedniks, with only a brief mention of some of the other kinds of Russian nature reserve ('specially protected natural areas', or OOPT in Russian), I suggest retitling the article 'Zapovednik', and perhaps later adding a new page with the title 'Nature reserves in Russia' to cover the other categories of OOPT.

I hope that this will meet with readers' approval, and propose making the revisions and additions over the coming weeks as I learn how to edit in Wikiworld.

Geoff Harper 11:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that would be great. Articles on specific zapovedniks are also badly needed. I have most of the volumes of Заповедники СССР, a book series published in Moscow in the 1980s - early 1990s, probably it could also be useful. Colchicum 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for lending a hand. Since the Russian terminology in protected areas is different from English/international, I would suggest the following structure of the overall coverage of the topic. First, there must be separate articles for specific terms Zapovednik / Zakaznik / Forest park (Russian analog of "urban forest"; btw. there is Forest Park page) etc. Second, the Nature reserves in Russia Protected areas of Russia must be an overview article, with separate sections for particular terms that sontain summaries, see Summary style for guidelines. And of course all individual reserves deserve separate articles. We all will be happy to help you with peculiarities of the wikipedia style. `'Míkka 17:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka, concerning your last edits, at least in the Soviet Union it was not abuse. Zapovedniks have complex structure, in some areas much more was allowed (by law or instructions, not only de facto) than in others.Colchicum 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry colleague, you are wrong. But at the moment our dispute is pointless. The whole article is a complete mess and confusing and requires a total rewrite along the lines I indicated. Here is the Law About Nature Reserves in Russia. Since this is an official document, it is not copyrighted, hence its portions may be directly translated into wikipedia. I don't have time right now. `'Míkka 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like in the Soviet Union it was different. But what about this? На специально выделенных участках частичного хозяйственного использования, не включающих особо ценные экологические системы и объекты, ради сохранения которых создавался государственный природный заповедник, допускается деятельность, которая направлена на обеспечение функционирования государственного природного заповедника и жизнедеятельности граждан, проживающих на его территории, и осуществляется в соответствии с утвержденным индивидуальным положением о данном государственном природном заповеднике.Colchicum 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this? Like I said, our discussion is pointless: The whole text must be rewritten. Until this job started I will no longer waste time discussing the current text. The only I have to comment: yes you were right to be suspicious about the word "inviolate". I guess it was my careless reading and poor understanding of English. The law says "zapovedniks are areas excluded from economic usage", which I thought means "inviolate".  Later it says that "zapovedniks may include areas with absolutely no interference", whcih would be a correct meaning of "inviolate". `'Míkka 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Colchicum and Mikka, for ideas; I'll try to incorporate some of them as I go along. Certainly there ought to be separate articles for 'zapovednik', 'zakaznik', and an overview article, though I may not be up to doing them all.

I've just made a few changes, including removing the 'species' section, and correcting the mistake about a zapovednik in Moscow (presumably this refers to Losiny Ostrov, which is a national park).

I note that there has been a dispute in the past about 'natural reserve'. It makes sense to speak of natural and unnatural landscapes, habitats and ecosystems, in so far as the unnatural ones involve human action to create and/or maintain them, but all reserves are by definition unnatural in this sense, since the act of reserving, and then maintaining that status, is unnatural. 'Nature reserve' is the accepted term, and so I have changed 'natural reserve' to 'nature reserve' or 'zapovednik' where appropriate.Geoff Harper 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader goal
Geoff, sorry to bother you with more burden, but I noticed that the whole topic of nature conservation in wikipedia is an unstructured mess, as a result of chaoic development. The articles about core terms protected area, nature reserve, biosphere reserve and their surrounds exhibit two following major problems: I wanted to boldly make some order here, but soon I understood that I simply lack the necessary overall knowledge. I could have tackled some isolated cases, but the whole nature conservation / nature protection is beyound me. Can you look into this? `'Míkka 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * no distinction between the terms
 * no distinction between informal and formal usage
 * frequent duplication of information
 * no clarification between intrenational and various national terminologies.
 * Mikka, thanks for your message. Like you, I have the impression that this is, in the wider world too, a 'minefield'. Having no knowledge of protected areas outside the former Soviet Union I don't think I could recommend how to tidy it up. Although new to Wikipedia, I suspect that it is intrinsically incapable of too much order, and perhaps relies on a network arrangement rather than any serious attempt at a hierarchical arrangement. I've had a quick look at 'protected area', 'nature reserve', 'biosphere reserve', 'nature conservation' and 'nature protection', and they all look pretty competent except for the last one, which is a woolly term anyway. The one bit of tidying up I would recommend, and could help with, is the Russian articles. In particular I have tried changing the name 'Nature reserves in Russia' to 'Zapovednik', but find I can't, so have requested help. This would leave the old page 'Nature reserves in Russia' as a summary or stub to direct people to 'Zapovednik', 'Zakaznik', 'List of national parks of Russia' (which I've done something with), and 'Nature monument' (which I might be able to do something with). I hope this helps. (For some reason the signature did not appear; trying again.)(Now I get it: the tildes should go here.)Geoff Harper 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "they all look pretty competent". Please see my bullets above. I didn't question their quality. Each one is reasonably reasonable, and after reading you go away reasonably satisfied. But taken together they suck: you cannot figure out the whole system. For example it took me quite some time of googlig to understand (or, as my favorite teacher used to say "to get an illusion of understanding of") the relationship between the notions of biosphere reserve and nature reserve and why there are separate WNBR and IUCN. `'Míkka 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Move done. IMO the head article must be Protected areas in Russia, to stick to the international classification. `'Míkka 15:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Due to the zoned structure of zapovednik, IMO their definition is closer to the notion of biosphere reserve, isn't it? `'Míkka 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Mikka, for the move. Well, I'm glad to know now what 'WNBR' stands for, though had a shock when the page came up (I'm 63, and can't take this sort of thing). I take your point about clarification needed on the articles you list, and think that someone working in the field, e.g. an employee of IUCN, WWF, or some such body, would be best. As I understand it, 'biosphere reserve' refers specifically to reserves designated under the MAB programme, i.e. meeting their criteria and accepted. 'Protected area' is vague, and means any area given legal protection, whether for nature, or historical interest, &c. 'Nature reserve' is even vaguer, and need not have any formal legal protection: just any area where someone wants to protect nature (e.g. their own garden). Zapovedniks and biosphere reserves (often an area has both designations), and even Russian national parks, may have virtually the same structure, being zoned for different uses; the difference is often mainly just a matter of which official body granted the designation and pays the funding (if any). The biosphere concept was originally based partly on the pre-existing Russian zapovednik concept, hence the resemblance.Geoff Harper 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WNBR: yep, many think that wikipedia is mostly dedicated to these topics :-) (fixed). `'Míkka 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I made an intitial text for Protected areas in Russia, just so that someone well-meaning would not do something strange here. By the way, do you know anything about non-state zapovedniks? `'Míkka 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 'Protected areas in Russia' page; that organizes things nicely. As to state and non-state zaps: depends what you mean by 'state'. The article is about federal zaps, but there are also zaps registered at local level, eg oblast', kray, republic. I don't know anything about them. Pleistocene park may come under this heading. I don't think there is a truly private zap, though there is a private nature park in the Russian Far East, described in Russian Conservation News a few issues back; I'll try to get details for you.Geoff Harper 11:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to thank me for each mouse click. Also, re: "to get details for you". Please keep in mind that in wikipedia the article talk pages are to discuss articles, and unless the question is really private, the assumption is that the question is about the article, i.e., you don't have to get "details to me"; you have to get them to some article. Even minimal pieces you've seen will be helpful, e.g., to give a prod for someone else to expand the article more. Pleistocene park is a great pointer. `'Míkka 14:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is likely that all national parks in Russia are federal. However there are such protected areas as Khasanskiy Nature Park south of Vladivostok, which seems to have been set up as a private initiative and may now be officially recognized as a nature park by the local authorities (see Russian Conservation News no.21, Fall 1999, pp.10-14).Geoff Harper 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As in the case of 'List of national parks of Russia', I've tried uploading a map of zaps to Wikimedia Commons from http://www.rusnatpress.org.uk/zapsmap.jpg (my own work, and free for all to use), but apparently without success. How many days is one supposed to wait until one knows whether it has worked? It is meant to illustrate 'Environments protected'. Help/advice would be appreciated.Geoff Harper 10:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The uploaded file is available immediately. You must have made an error during the uploading. Also, Wikimedia has strict policy on the copyrights issues. Basically, only images which are free, public domain and compatible with GFDL license may be uploaded. So your upload cound have been deleted. You have to read carefully the rules indicated on the uploading page and follow them. You have to indicate the source and the correct license tag. `'Míkka 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. It seems that no file with name suggesting 'map of zaps' has ever been uploaded in August. What is your user name in Commons ? `'Míkka 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. One cannot rule out a technical problem as well. Can you repeat the upload, carefully (log in, select "own work" option in the upload page, select a licence)? I could have done it myself, but since you clam it is your work, you better do it yourself. `'Míkka 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now tried uploading again (my user name is 'Geoff Harper'), this time accepting the suggested destination filename 'Zapsmap.jpg', and selecting 'Own work, all rights released'. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Please feel free to upload it yourself; or I can remove the map from the article.Geoff Harper 15:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange. A stupid question: did you try to upload the file from your computer or from the website? Only first way works, and you first have to download it to your computer. `'Míkka 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A very sensible question! I was using the website as source, but have now succeeded at last following your advice: thanks.193.62.154.69 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias/Opinion in "International significance of the zapovednik system" section
The first paragraph of the section titled "International significance of the zapovednik system" reads more like an opinion and political views rather than a factual and objective statement. It also looks like the section was just something taken word-for-word out of its source - 1 book. While the argument may have merit, the section isn't following NPOV. 97.127.187.62 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated List of Zapovedniks
Well, I took a shot at updating the list of nature reserves. Next I plan to do a copy edit of the introductory text sections and the list descriptions. I find it interesting that free-license photos are so hard to find for what appear to be important reserves. I've tried the usual sources (Google Images, Panoramio, Flickr, Wikimedia Commons) and still come up blank for almost 20% of the reserves. Anyone have any ideas? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zapovednik. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222011712/http://www.unesco.org:80/mab/BRs/EurBRlist.shtml to http://www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/EurBRlist.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)