Talk:Zapovednik

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 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)
thread_title: Weiner book

message: 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)
thread_title: Similarity to U.S. Wilderness Areas?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: 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: 
*no distinction between the terms
*no distinction between informal and formal usage
*frequent duplication of information
*no clarification between intrenational and various national terminologies.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: WNBR: yep, many think that wikipedia is mostly dedicated to these topics :-) (fixed).  `'Míkka 16:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Broader goal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bias/Opinion in "International significance of the zapovednik system" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updated List of Zapovedniks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified