Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 4

Are U.S. National Monuments "protected areas"?
Relatedly, I am noticing that Category:National Monuments in Hawaii got put into Category:Protected areas of Hawaii, which also seems incorrect to me. Not all National Monuments are environmental protection oriented; one in downtown New York City consists of a memorial statue and artificial turf. I will go through the state categories within Category:National Monuments of the United States and remove them from the Protected areas categories again. How tedious to do this again and again! doncram (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This may not be correct since you seem to be mostly talking to yourself. Since Category:National Monuments of the United States is in the category Category:Protected areas of the United States, if follows that this should be replicated at the state level.  There is nothing about 'protected areas' saying that they are or must be 'environmental protection oriented'.  Also, your removal of any category that relates to the state in which the state Monuments exist should not be done.  What are are the appropriate state level parents into which these state National Monument categories should go into?  Your removal without replacement is just destructive of the navigation that categories are supposed to provide. Hmains (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hmains for pointing out that the national level categories are likely to be incorrect, too. Protected areas are indeed defined to be environmental/natural areas.  That is the topic of this Wikiproject Protected areas of which I have been a member for quite a while now, as well as being an active participant of wp:HSITES and wp:NRHP.  For your information, Hmains, "Protected areas are locations which receive protection because of their environmental value, or environmental plus cultural values.  Examples include parks, nature reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries.  Not included in the term are historic sites such as buildings that do not include natural environmental aspects, but some are "cultural landscapes" which reflect interaction of humankind and nature."  Some National Monuments are merely buildings with no natural areas associated.  Some others are natural only and have no historic aspects associated.  Some are both.  I am familiar with the specific details of a good number of U.S. National Monuments and KNOW that many are not historic sites and also that many are not natural areas.  National Monuments are not always Protected areas, nor are they always NRHP-listed, nor are they part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc., so I just removed the following 5 parent categories from the Category:National Monuments of the United States:
 * Category:Protected areas of the United States
 * Category:United States Fish and Wildlife Service
 * Category:United States National Park Service
 * Category:USDA Forest Service
 * Category:Heritage registers
 * I further wonder whether the following 2 categories apply, not being familiar with how those are defined: Category:National monuments and memorials and Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States
 * I do accept that Category:Visitor attractions in the United States applies.
 * I will proceed with removing inappropriate parent categories from the state-level National Monument categories, too. doncram (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not answered or acted to ensure that categories at the state level are always included in a [correct] state level category tree. Please consider.  At the very least, each state level should be in the state 'visitor attraction' category, following the pattern at national level. Hmains (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly interested in navigating by categories or adding categories to articles or refining category structures. I am only acting to remove incorrect categorizations when I happen to notice them.  I don't happen to think that adding 50 state-level "visitor attractions" categories will improve the Wikipedia, and it is unrelated to the topics of Protected areas and historic sites that I am interested in, so I won't do those edits.  Not my job! :) doncram (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But because we're talking here, i note, further, that "Monuments and memorials" seems to be about sculptures and war memorials and such, and not natural landmarks like many U.S. National Monuments. I say this based on browsing at Category:Monuments and memorials, because I cannot find a definition of the term "Monuments and memorials" for the category.  So, I think it would be correct to remove Category:National monuments and memorials and Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States as parent categories for the national category of U.S. National Monuments too, and remove each of the corresponding state ones as well.  Hmains, could you possibly do that with your automated editing tools that I have seen you applying? doncram (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your narrow focus actions and statements in orphaning articles from their state show a lack of responsibility and due care to improve WP. The net result is your work become suspect. Not a good place to be. Hmains (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that Doncram has removed all U.S. national monuments from the protected areas categories. This was incorrect. National monuments are indeed established for diverse purposes, but all U.S. national monuments are protected by law. (If they weren't, the designation of new monuments would not be nearly as controversial as it often is!) --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You will notice that this removal by Doncram has occured at the state level, which I gave up discussing. Hmains (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He also removed national monuments from the U.S. protected areas category. I have now restored the categorization to the U.S. category and about half of the states. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Doncram noted above, "Protected areas are locations which receive protection because of their environmental value, or environmental plus cultural values. Examples include parks, nature reserves, and wildlife sanctuaries. Not included in the term are historic sites such as buildings that do not include natural environmental aspects, but some are "cultural landscapes" which reflect interaction of humankind and nature." So, just because they are protected in some way does not mean that they fall under this category.  But, I guess in your minds incorrect categorization is better than no categorization.  To me it seems to "show a lack of responsibility and due care to improve WP" to be adding things to categories that don't meet the definition of the category.  But, hey, if you guys have nothing better to do, then whatever. Lvklock (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, well, I agree that Hmains comment about me was insulting and inappropriate and I guess I appreciate someone responding to it for me, but I hope this is not going to go further down a track of trading insults back and forth.


 * The basic fact that needs to be understood is that the term protected areas as used in WikiProject Protected areas, the article protected areas, and related categories is the environmental / natural areas designated by the World Commission on Protected Areas plus others like them. Natural only.  Hmains originally, and now Orlady, seem to be misunderstanding the term.  We cannot go around inventing new meanings for this term.  Like, just because there is a security guard at a bank, the bank does not become a "protected area" as used here.  Historic places protected to some degree by NRHP-listing, National Historic Site listing, National Monument listing, and various other designations are not protected areas in this sense either.  For one specific example, the African Burial Ground in downtown NYC is not a natural area, although it was designated a U.S. National Monument by President G.W.Bush under the power given by the U.S. Antiquities Act.


 * In archives of this Wikiproject this issue has been talked out previously. Orlady, would you please check the relevant articles, perhaps browse the Talk archives here, and otherwise confirm for yourself what the term "protected areas" means?  I believe you will be satisfied to conclude that while many individual U.S. National Monuments meet the criteria, others do not, and therefore that your recent category changes should be undone.  Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I removed Category:Protected areas of the United States from the top-level U.S. National Monuments category, and will return to remove the corresponding state-level ones to revert Orlady's changes if she does not comment or do those changes in the next day or two.


 * Further, I removed Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States and will edit the category description to clarify that it is about cemetery-type memorials and statues and monuments like the Washington Monument, while it is not about natural type places (some of which happen to have the "National Monument" name in the U.S.).


 * And further, does anyone else have any comment on whether Botanical gardens are natural/environmental protected areas? Reywas92 and I seem to agree that they are not.  If there is not further discussion, I will proceed to cleanup the related categories accordingly. doncram (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of the way that this discussion has diverged, I have split it and have copied the last paragraph of Doncram's above comment into the earlier section that is still focused on botanical parks. I hope that Doncram will appreciate that I did this for the benefit of all discussion participants, and that the change is not in any way intended to be disrespectful of Doncram, his good intentions, or his many positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, thanks. doncram (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wall, the language in Protected area that restricted the scope to areas protected for environmental/natural values was added in August 2009 by a user named Doncram, who apparently added it without prior discussion (at least, I did not see any such discussion on this page or on Talk:Protected area). In a title such as "protected area", the main theme should be that the areas are "protected," not the purpose of the protection. Given the diversity of protection mechanisms around the world, the interpretation of "protected area" needs to be somewhat broad, not narrow and restrictive. Although the IUCN initiatives on "protected areas" focus on natural values, in fact many of the areas around the world that are designated (and protected) as national parks or reserves (etc.) are designated either primarily or secondarily for their cultural values. I have edited the article to restore the earlier somewhat broad definition of "protected area," removing the arbitrary (and apparently unilateral) assertion that the term "protected" applies only to protection focused on environmental/natural values.
 * U.S. national monuments are in fact protected by law -- under what I suspect is one of the world's oldest laws authorizing legal protection for areas of ecological and cultural value. It is ridiculous to suggest that U.S. national monuments are not "protected areas" because some of them are protected primarily for their cultural value, while asserting that U.S. national forests (which many would argue are not "protected" because extensive logging and other ecological disturbances are allowed to occur in these areas) are "protected areas" because their designation has to do with a natural characteristic.
 * I infer that the impetus for removing areas of cultural interest from the description of "protected area" was due to the fact that properties listed on heritage registers are not generally considered to be "protected areas." This is not due to the values associated with these properties, but rather is due to the reality that many heritage registers (including but not limited to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places) do not provide any actual protection for the areas/properties they list. Please focus the definition and scope of "protected areas" on the existence of some form of protection, and don't get into hair-splitting related to the purpose of the protection. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted your changes, Orlady, to the protected areas article, to preserve continuity of what "protected areas" has meant in Wikipedia. I will grant that this is worth more discussion and that I myself have had some question about use of the term.  It could be useful perhaps to consider using capitalized term Protected Areas and keep it focused on IUCN Protected Areas.  This could apply for the protected areas article and for the explicit focus of this WikiProject.  But there needs also to be much consideration of the actual longterm goals of this WikiProject, which I believe has been focused on parks, natural areas, etc. similar to, if not explicitly listed by, the IUCN.  I do hope that in this discussion the longstanding good work of many wp:PAREAS members (which much predates my own joining a year or two ago) is respected.  More later. doncram (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Orlady, I did clarify the language in the protected areas article not too long ago, but I believe my editing was better focusing the article on the actual, practical focus of this WikiProject and of the intended topic, which has always been environmental/natural areas of the 6 or 7 types defined by IUCN. I reviewed the old history of the article in 2002 and 2004 and so on and I acknowledge that the language always was a bit open to cultural-only places, but I believe that those have not ever been the intended focus of the article or the WikiProject.  Interestingly, i notice the article was about capitalized Protected Areas from origination until this Nov 2004 edit.  The article has always focused on IUCN Protected Areas.  You might note that the Protected areas infobox has a parameter for which one of the 6 or 7 IUCN types apply, effectively requiring each place with infobox to be categorized as one of the following:

* Ia - Strict Nature Reserve * Ib - Wilderness Area * II - National Park * III - Natural Monument * IV - Habitat/Species Management Area * V - Protected Landscape/Seascape * VI - Managed Resource Protected Area


 * In the history of the project, there have at times been a lack of clarity, which led to some correctable mistakes like assuming that U.S. National Monuments are IUCN Natural Monuments, when they sometimes meet the definition of an IUCN National Park and sometimes are not natural at all, as in the aforementioned case of African Burial Ground in downtown New York City. It was also assumed originally that all U.S. National park service areas were natural areas, as most of them are in fact, and hence the protected areas infobox was applied with ill-justified shoehorning of some places that did not fit the IUCN categories.  One notable development was for members here to split off the NRHP WikiProject, which developed its own infobox that applies better for the historic-only, non-natural U.S. National Park Service areas.


 * In the Talk archives about a year and a half ago you will see clarifications, by consensus, to exclude various U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed places such as Fort Crailo which have no naturalness to them to protect. It has been consensus to cover natural areas, including some natural areas that also happen to preserve some historical or cultural aspects.


 * About the potential for hair-splitting, Orlady, your speculation that "I infer that the impetus for removing areas of cultural interest from the description of 'protected area' was due.... to the reality that many heritage registers (including but not limited to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places) do not provide any actual protection for the areas/properties they list" is, i believe, completely incorrect. I believe that cultural-only places have never been intended to be covered by the IUCN or by this WikiProject.  Also I myself do not split hairs on whether listing on NRHP or another register is protection or not.  I actually happen to think that NRHP-listing, while not nearly as strong as the government taking ownership or absolutely prohibiting any changes by a private owner, is in fact a serious degree of lesser protection (e.g., in the court of public opinion about whether a local government should allow a property to be demolished or not).  So it is just not about that potential issue at all.


 * The potential for hair-splitting here is more about whether protected areas can be used as a phrase in Wikipedia to mean what it has been meant to mean in practice in Wikipedia, namely IUCN-listed Protected Areas and other non-IUCN-listed wildlife refuges etc. like them. There is some merit to considering whether Wikipedia has been coining a neologism(sp?) here and hence whether some other phrase (perhaps IUCN-listed Protected Areas) should be used to describe what is meant.  So, I appreciate your focus here, but I wish to suggest there should be no broadening of definition for protected area that seems random, and that is inconsistent with IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas' definition and with past practice of use here. doncram (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I went through and removed the PA categories again, with edit label "Undid per wt:PAREAS. Not all US National Monuments are PAs, so remove category implying that; pls. add indiv NMs to PA category if valid."  I guess this is done for now. doncram (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmains again added all the "National Monuments in STATE" categories incorrectly to "Protected areas in STATE" categories. Not all National Monuments are protected areas. I will revert all his recent changes again soon. But, is there anything to discuss? doncram (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is to discuss is that what you are asserting is completely wrong and that you are engaged in editing that serves no valid WP purpose. Since you have no WP facts to support you, you work here serves no purpose. Hmains (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read what has been discussed already? There are U.S. National Monuments such as African Burial Ground in NYC and some memorial in Washington DC that are not Protected areas, as defined by the IUCN, by the Wikiproject here, or by any other definition except new made-up ones.  Hopefully someone else could comment here. doncram (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is: 1) no reason to think that IUCN owns the definition of 'protected area' as it does not; 2) no reason to think that US protected areas fail to fall into the IUCN definition as they clearly do; 3) no reason to think that the US and its sub-governments cannot protect areas (even tiny areas) from private development by making them legally 'protected areas', as they do it all the time. Hmains (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hmains. The fact that the International Union for Conservation of Nature is only interested in protection of areas with natural values does not mean that an encyclopedia can credibly assert that only areas that are protected for natural values can be considered to be "protected." In the title "protected area", the main theme must necessarily be that the areas are protected, not the purpose of the protection. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised, Orlady, given your attention to detail in discussions a year or so ago, about a different term that was in use within WikiProject NRHP editing. Anyone can define a term "protected area" to mean whatever you want it to mean, in your own use outside of wikipedia.  You are also free to use that phrase informally in Wikipedia articles, at least if it is not confusing in the context.  But, for Wikipedia use, we should strive to use official terms as they are defined by others, according to reliable sources, etc.  In the context of this WikiProject and articles such as Protected area and National Monument (United States), we should not employ a different meaning.  What about the dictum of wp:neologism that we should not invent new terms?  I don't agree, obviously, with anyone seeking to define protected area for Wikipedia to mean any kind of protected area whatsoever.


 * I finally realized what you were referring to here, Doncram. (Yes, I feel rather stupid for not catching on sooner...) My concern in the NRHP context was that the scope of discussion was clearly limited exclusively to the National Register of Historic Places (not "historic sites" in general), but Wikipedia was using a term (rendered with capital letters, as if it were a proper noun) that was not in use by the agency that administers the National Register (in fact, the term had been invented by Wikipedians). This is very different from the situation with "protected areas" (note: NOT a proper noun), which exist as a generic concept worldwide. IUCN doesn't have exclusive control of the concept of a protected area in the same way that that the U.S. National Park Service has exclusive control over the National Register of Historic Places. --Orlady (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take this lightly: What about shopping malls, don't those have security guards and cameras?  Should we add category:shopping malls to Protected areas categories? :) doncram (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I am noticing repeated edits to Category:National Monuments of the United States which add it to "Protected areas" categories, and sometimes to related articles, and I am periodically removing those changes. To Orlady and Hmains: you have an unconventional view for Wikipedia, in my opinion, if you wish to impose your personal idea of what the phrase "protected area" should mean. The practice in this WikiProject, and in usage internationally by the IUCN, has been to use that term to cover natural areas of 6 types including wildlife refuges, but not including historic buildings with no natural/environmental preservation aspects. It would be helpful for your and our general education if you would attempt to find some source for your different views. I am pretty sure you cannot find a source for your idea that all U.S. National Monuments are Protected areas as defined by IUCN (or by any other official definition besides your own), although, yes, many of the individual US NMs are PAs (but not all). I concede also that I am not likely to find a printed source stating that U.S. National Monuments are NOT something that they are not, but that's because people and organizations don't write about such things. Likewise I cannot find a public statement that shopping malls are not protected areas. What we need to do is use official definitions and positive public statements about what protected areas are. Editing the category does not transform the facts here. Please discuss. doncram (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above statements are a mirror image of reality. It is nowhere said that IUCN has the monopoly/ownership of the term 'protected area' that you are trying to impose on WP.  The US does not jump to IUCN definitions and neither does WP. Protected areas are protected in the US because some part of a US government is stopping private development in them.  That is all it has ever meant.  It is the US law, not IUCN, that constructs what is protected.  Whatever the law protects is 'protected'. No more and no less Hmains (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, well, it is in fact right for Wikipedia to "jump to" the definition of protected area as defined by IUCN, for articles about protected areas, which are defined by them and listed by them. Wikipedia "jumps to" U.S. law when describing U.S. National Monuments, which are defined by the U.S.  Likewise we list all places that the U.S. says are listed on its National Register of Historic Places, even sometimes when we know a building has been demolished (which we explain).  We don't claim that places not listed by the U.S. government are U.S. National Monuments or U.S. NRHP-listed places.  We don't use new personal re-definitions of terms that have accepted, official meanings. doncram (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To repeat yet again:
 * The National Register of Historic Places (note capital letters, as appropriate for a proper noun) is the official name of specific program operated by the United States government's National Park Service. The term National Register of Historic Places is used in Wikipedia (and elsewhere) only in connection the National Park Service program. The NRHP Wikiproject deals exclusively with items associated with that program. Accordingly, it is important to cleave to the Park Service's terminology and definitions.
 * In contrast, "protected area" is not a proper noun. It is a generic term consisting of the standard English-language words "protected" and "area", and it is generally used by people in a manner consistent with the dictionary definitions of those words. IUCN does use the term, and for its purposes it defines the term more narrowly than the dictionary, but (AFAICT) it does not have a trademark, copyright, patent, or other exclusive right to this term. Indeed, there are other governments and NGOs that also use the same term and define it differently.
 * The World Database on Protected Areas says "Protected areas are locations which receive protection because of their environmental, cultural or similar value. Countries often have extensive systems of protected areas developed over many years. These systems vary considerably country to country, depending on national needs and priorities, and on differences in legislative, institutional and financial support. Protected areas transcend different environments from the highest mountains to the deepest sea, across forests, deserts, lakes and even national boundaries (territories)." They further say that their database uses the IUCN definition.
 * UNEP says: "A protected area is defined as an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, managed through legal or other effective means."
 * The Convention on Biodiversity says (in part): "Values of protected areas range from the protection of natural habitats and associated flora and fauna, to the maintenance of environmental stability of surrounding regions."
 * The US government's Marine Protected Areas of the United States program says: "Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are valuable tools for conserving the nation's natural and cultural marine resources as part of an ecosystem approach to management. The United States has many types of MPAs for many purposes, including conservation of natural heritage, cultural heritage and sustainable production."
 * In Protected Areas News (published by the Consortium for International Protected Area Management ), I read: "What is a protected area? There are many different types. They range from strict nature reserves to distinct cultural landscapes. The USDA Forest Service has almost a century of experience with a wide range of protected areas, from wilderness areas to multiple-use management areas. ... Whatever the type, protected areas reflect a broad moral choice to conserve landscapes of value, whether natural or cultural."
 * The Protected Areas Database of the United States uses a modified version of the IUCN definition ("Protected Areas are lands dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural, recreation and cultural uses, and managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means"), and defines its database scope thusly (note the emphasis on effectiveness of protection, not purpose of protection): "In the PAD-US, protected areas are lands held in fee ownership for permanent or very long term open space uses. These include national parks and forests, public lands generally, wildlife preserves, state and local parks and reserves, lands held by non-profit organizations and many other areas. Eventually, the PAD-US Partnership will seek to incorporate marine protected areas, as well as lands that may only be secured for shorter time frames. The PAD-US does not generally include military or tribal lands unless they are secured for open space purposes. Easements are also considered forms of protection and separate efforts are underway to develop better inventories of these areas, coordinated with the PAD-US."
 * I could go on and on (I already have!), but I hope I have made and documented my point. The term "protected area" has a generic meaning that is broader than what the IUCN uses for its programmatic purposes and that meaning is not necessarily restricted by the purpose of the protection (or the size of the area). --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reversed, once again, Orlady's edit of the National Monuments category which put it into PAs category. Thanks, Orlady, for bringing up several useful sources about what the term "Protected areas" means.  That seems constructive.  These sources are all very consistent in describing protected areas as natural areas as has been the meaning employed by this WikiProject and has been employed in the Protected areas article and so on.  However, please note that these rather clearly do NOT include historic buildings and other non-natural areas.  Please note that neither NRHP listing nor National Monument listing is given as evidence that any NRHP or NM places is a "protected area".  There are some "cultural landscapes" which are preserved both for natural qualities and also for historic/cultural qualities, yes.  In my view, based on my previous reading of similar sources and my browsing among these ones again now, and my having browsed in the Antiquities Act and in NRHP listing guidelines previously, it is very clear that most NRHP-listed places and a few National Monuments are NOT protected areas.  Of course the selected NRHPs and NMs that are in fact PAs can and should be put into PA categories.  But the general categories of NRHPs and NMs should not be put into PA categories.  The general issue for NRHPs was previously discussed, a year or two ago, in this WikiProject talk page and consensus was that NRHPs are not necessarily PAs.  Now, we are clarifying that several NMs are likewise not PAs.


 * If anyone wishes to continue to dispute this, please consider the specifics of the African Burial Ground and the President Lincoln's Cottage at the Soldiers' Home, which are two U.S. National Monuments that are not natural and are pretty obviously not "protected areas" by any acceptable general definition. This may be difficult to understand, but the U.S. Antiquities Act permits the U.S. President to declare National Monuments without restricting him to entirely natural areas or to mixed "cultural landscape" areas that be "protected areas".  The Antiquities Act has in fact been used in ways that were unexpected originally.  It is a fallacy of reasoning to argue, if anyone is, that because most NMs are PAs then all of them are.  That is just not true. doncram (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram says "These sources are all very consistent in describing protected areas as natural areas," but that's decidedly not what I see when I read these definitions. Start with the first source that I quoted. The World Database on Protected Areas says protected areas are "locations which receive protection because of their environmental, cultural or similar value." Both the African Burial Ground and the President Lincoln's Cottage at the Soldiers' Home (the two examples you keep bringing up) are locations that receive protection because of their cultural value. By that one example, I believe I have disproved the assertion that "These sources are all very consistent in describing protected areas as natural areas." Several (but not all) of these other definitions are similar in their breadth.
 * If you are still determined to tell the world that U.S. National Monuments are not protected areas, here's some more reading for you: . --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your little argument here is lacking. There are millions of places like, say, Carnegie Hall in NYC, which has cultural value, but which no one in the real world would claim is a protected area.  I agree that those two places are listed on the NRHP and are designated as NMs for their cultural/historic value.  And they are not PAs.


 * I am offended. In this discussion, you have used edit summaries calling me or my actions "silly" or "insane" and now you are telling me "Don't be a dick".


 * I apologize to the good members of WikiProject that this disagreement is getting personalized. Unfortunately there is now a long history between Orlady and myself.  Orlady, let's take this discussion, which has been escalating over time, to mediation or some other process.  Please respond at my Talk page or somewhere other than here, about the personal disagreement stuff, which is not needed here. doncram (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You probably are right that no one would claim that Carnegie Hall is a "protected area" -- but that is because it is not protected, not because it lacks ecological value. The single most important determinant of whether a location is a "protected area" should be whether it is protected, not the type of value it possesses.


 * This discussion does not belong on your talk page (or mine). The discussion is about article-writing and categorization -- and since neither you nor I owns the protected area articles and categories, the discussion should occur in article space or project space, not in our user talk space.


 * Regarding that essay I pointed you to, I did not tell you "Don't be a dick" -- I merely suggested that you read the essay (and think about it). --Orlady (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if people are considering NRHPs protected areas, as they are not. No law is protecting them. But by all of the various definitions Orlady has provided, I believe it is obvious that all NMs, including African Burial Ground and Lincoln Home, are areas that are protected and are therefore protected areas. These clearly hold cultural significance and are protected by US law.I hope that the main protected area article can accurately cover all the different organizations' definitions. Reywas92 Talk 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one editor here is confusing NHRP into this dicusssion, the same one thta is trying to impose his view, ignoring all contrary evidence provided by several editors, that US National Monuments are not protected areas despite the opposition of all other editors discussing this subject. Hmains (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, Hmains, i'm not confused about NRHPs at all. Are you?  It was an analogy:  not all NMs are PAs, just like not all NRHPs are PAs.  I notice that Orlady specifically just invited you to chime back in here.  In the same discussion on your talk page, by the way, I notice that there is more discussion relating to categories for "Memorials and monuments".  Here's another analogy:  just like not all NMs are PAs, not all (in fact very few) U.S. National Monuments are like anything else suitably categorized as memorials and monuments like the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial.  I suggest adding most or all of the U.S. National Memorials but not the U.S. National Monuments as a group to the monuments and memorials category.  The designation "National Monument" is rather a misnomer.  I don't intend to fight about making/keeping the Category:Monuments and memorials meaningful though;  in this discussion here i am just trying to address the facts about which ones are PAs or not.  But it does seem related to note that Hmains is simultaneously arguing that all U.S. NMs are protected areas and also that they are all memorials and monuments.  Some like Devil's Postpile are the first and very clearly not the latter;  some like the monument at the African Burial Ground are not PAs as I understand the PA term, but can be fairly classified as the latter.


 * To Reywas92 -- thanks for commenting. I do perceive the NRHPs to be "protected" to some degree by NRHP listing, though obviously not very strongly as many NRHPs get demolished.  But the tax incentive and other aspects do provide some protection in a mild way at least, depending on how you want to define that.  Also, i have the impression that IUCN, UNEP, the WPDA are the same or highly related so there are not very many different organizational views on what PAs are that would need to be compared and contrasted in the protected areas article.  I'll review the sources a bit more though and comment again in a day or two. doncram (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting comments.


 * Hmains has devoted an enormous amount of time, energy, and thought to structuring Wikipedia categories, including categories for U.S. geography-related topics. I don't always agree with the way he does things, but I believe his 30,716 edits to Category space (plus many times more edits to place articles into categories) mean that his opinions on categorization deserve to be listened to. His engagement in the ongoing interaction over U.S. national monuments and protected areas predates mine; I alerted him to the fact that the discussion had perked up again because I thought that he would want to know.


 * I've never before heard anyone with knowledge of the subject characterize a National Register listing as "protection" (I have heard that kind of talk in rants by developers and road-builders who are deeply suspicious of anything to do with either natural or cultural heritage, but they generally don't know much of anything about the NRHP). It is certainly true that some NRHP-listed properties are protected, but that protection comes from some mechanism other than the NRHP listing (for example, ownership by an historic preservation conservancy). Tax incentives do not constitute the type of "effective legal means" referenced in several of the "protected areas" definitions. Listing also imposes some additional requirements on federally funded projects that affect the property, but it does not prevent federal projects from destroying a listed property -- and the vast majority of destructive actions aren't federally funded.


 * It is interesting that one user has "the impression that IUCN, UNEP, and the WPDA are the same or highly related," but I don't see a source supporting that impression -- and if you dig into sourced information on these entities you will discover that these are separate entities that may work together, but are not the same. In any event, neither the IUCN, UNEP, WPDA, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Consortium for International Protected Area Management, or any other entity has exclusive rights to the term "protected area." It is a generic term. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, i don't get the distinction between they "work together" vs. they are highly related. Providing tax incentives and public scrutiny for NRHP listings is obviously a form of incentivization towards preservation, which is a kind of force for protection, and I was not asserting that is what is defined by IUCN or others.  Please don't misrepresent what I have stated in order to prove somehow, finally, that you have proven me to be incorrect in something.  I do admit mistakes from time to time, by the way.  And here, I did say I would revisit the sources you rounded up.  Orlady, frankly, is your main interest here in showing me up, showing me to be wrong in something?  That seems to be the simplest hypothesis for your energy on this issue, and your unusual egging on of avid categorizer Hmains, who seems from his Talk page to have irritated other Wikipedia editors with aggressive, perhaps ill-informed categorizing on other topics as well. doncram (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram asks "Orlady, frankly, is your main interest here in showing me up, showing me to be wrong in something?" My motivation is to avoid propagating nonsense and misinformation. Indeed, this is my motivation for much of my involvement with Wikipedia. For example, it is my motivation for my work on articles about colleges and universities with dubious credentials, where continual attention is needed to prevent/revert (1) introduction of misleading self-promotional information sourced to the institution's website, (2) introduction of allegations against the institution that are "sourced" only to anonymous online forums, (3) removal by single-purpose accounts of sourced content that is uncomplimentary toward the institution, and (4) undue emphasis in articles. The assertion that U.S. National Monuments are not "protected areas" falls in the general category of nonsense, which is why I find it offensive. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the position of Orlady, Hmains and others in full. IUCN and other organizations that cover nature protection do not have authority to define the term "protected area". They use it for their own purpose within their scope. Others can and do use it with other definitions. It seems reasonable for Wikipedia to use the term with regard to the United States for all areas that are designated to preservation/conservation (please let's not get into this here) and that includes natural areas as well as those protected for cultural reasons (Mesa Verde NP anyone?). To support this claim: The Antiquities Act of 1906 uses the term protect with regard to cultural and historical National Monuments. --h-stt  !?  08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite the independent person; the only 'egging me on' that I am getting is the continued wrong edits by an editor who fails to understand or care about the WP category system. For example, it is not a requirement of WP that every item in the category or its subcategories exactly fit: a good fit is good enough.  The same editor also persists in trying to pervert the meaning of 'protected area' to suit his point of view. It is the U.S. law that makes an area a 'protected area' by virtue of the language of the law and designation of the place.  It has nothing to do with some editor's opinion that a certain monument is 'not protected' because he does not agree with the idea. As a personal opinion, such assertions are not tolerated in WP articles or its categories.  You still stand alone in your personal opnions in this matter. Hmains (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the position taken by h-stt, Orlady, Hmains and others. It doesn't matter what is being legally protected in the specified geographic area whether it be environmental, biological or cultural; it does not matter what size it is; it even doesn't matter whther the laws protecting it are enforced. --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice of CFD on subcategories of Category:United States National Park Service
See Categories For Discussion (CFD) at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 2. doncram (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Category: National parks of Canada
I have nomed this cat for renaming here. Please contribute to the discussion. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Misty Fjords/Fiords National Monument
May I please point you to Talk:Misty Fiords National Monument and the naming issue I raised there? The page got moved in Oct 2009, and I think that was done in error and should be reverted. --h-stt !?  13:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FP delist proposal of Zion Narrows.jpg
The Featured picture File:Zion Narrows.jpg has been nominated for. Comments regarding its encyclopaedic value in the article The Narrows (Zion National Park) would be welcomed. Elekhh (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  00:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking Wikipedia with the World Database on Protected Areas- Protected Planet
I am the Project Manager for the UNEP-WCMC/IUCN world database on protected areas. We are starting to look at how we can more tightly integrate the WDPA with wikipedia. If you take a look at our new site Protected Planet you'll see we are integrating wikipedia descriptions where they are easily matched up and are encouraging users to add new wikipedia pages for sites that don't currently have articles. Ideally this synchronisation would work from both directions. So, the best ways forwards? Happy to here some suggestions! Craig. I should add here is a page with a wikipedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giarcsllim (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for showing up here.  One way that many wikipedia volunteers in this area could help, and would like to help, is in developing accurate, current and historical information about officially listed protected areas, to whatever extent there are official designations about them.  The WPDA database, in the past at least, has seemed to have many places missing and many places apparently mis-identified as protected areas when they seem not to have any natural/conservation qualities.  Could you coordinate or participate in a process of considering changes to the official WPDA database of protected areas?  There are different ways on the wikipedia end, in how we could identify questions and issues, if on your end you could productively use the information.  Another way that you could help, is to provide clarification about WDPA definitions of protected areas, and provide access to the official WPDA database itself.  Having a download of the database, in whatever data accuracy state it is in, would be helpful on this end in providing Wikipedia editors with some semi-automated tools.  I'm just one volunteer editor here, but have some experience coordinating along these lines with a different organization.  I'd be happy to explore more. --doncram (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, glad to see the response! Okay I should probably explain a little more.  So our latest initiative (http://protectedplanet.net) will hopefully do as you suggest, give users access directly to the WDPA to correct the data where there are deficiencies.  This will be something done both on the website and through bulk uploading tools for the data providers with large amounts of GIS data (governments, NGOs etc).  The database itself is deliberately limited to 14 core pieces of information which will not cover some of the more contextual stuff you might expect in wikipedia.  In terms of the definitions of a protected area, we try where possible to base data that enters the WDPA on the IUCN definition of protected area Protected_area but as you can imagine this can be open to interpretation from some of our data sources (of which there are around 500).  Now ideally what I would like to do is somehow allow the 14 pieces of information we collect from the WDPA to also be synchronised with wikipedia in both directions and at the same time display on protectedplanet.net the larger descriptions.  It would also be great if there was an automated way of adding the link to every protected area page in the corresponding wikipedia article.  We would of course be happy to help in the coordination of this if there is a willing from the community to do it and we will definitely be reliant on the experienced wikipedia folks such as yourself to make it happen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giarcsllim (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, very good. I browsed in your links and understand a bit more now.  On the Wikipedia side, all or most of the 14 pieces of info you mention should probably be displayed in the Protected Area infobox (template:Infobox protected area) used in many wikipedia articles.  The infobox coding should be revised to add any missing items that are useful, and to reflect the version (e.g. 2010 annual release issued on a specific date) of WPDA data that is the source for data included in a given infobox.  Hopefully it would be okay/good to include the WPDA ID number (and the WPDA Parent ID number where applicable).  It should be possible for one or a few Wikipedia editors to download the 2010 WPDA database, and to provide all other Wikipedia editors with filled-out draft infoboxes for use in articles.  Then it should further be possible to run a comprehensive update when the next big update of WPDA data becomes available.  The update might be implemented within Wikipedia by a customized wp:bot to directly update all the articles, or it might be implemented by editors working manually from a centrally reported big report of all of the update's changes.  That would all naturally be managed by volunteer editors here who are, or become, members of this WikiProject Protected areas.


 * About synchronizing the other way, perhaps one or a few members here could become registered users/contributors to the WPDA database, and could submit correction items that any editor here, even anonymous ones, could post to a WPDA info issues page. That way anyone could record that some correction is needed, or share info that helps in making a correction, without having to get all the way involved in your system.  I am involved in a similar system for working with the U.S. National Park Service about data corrections for its NRIS database (see wp:NRIS info issues), which overall has been working slowly but well and/or it has great potential, IMHO. :)  For example, wikipedia editors have identified many typos that have gotten fixed in NRIS, although there has been no resolution of many cases where wikipedia editors have identified that a building was demolished long ago and no longer exists, so it should not still be listed on the U.S. National Register, but it is still showing in their system (and still officially listed).  I don't understand yet how your system works to handle conflicting information reports, whether you or someone else acts as an arbiter, but that can become apparent if/when we work through a couple specific cases.  I'll open up an info issues reporting area now, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/WPDA info issues to collect some items, including some old ones discussed on this Talk page previously.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These seem like workable suggestions, I have boiled down your suggestions to the issues page you created where the community can hopefully come to consensus on the best way forward. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/WPDA info issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giarcsllim (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)