Talk:National park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Protected areas (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Oldest parks[edit]

I removed this line from the article: "One of the oldest national parks in the world is situated in Mihintale, Sri Lanka. The king Devanampiya Tissa declared the area surounding Mihintale in 307 BC a reserve after being preached by a Bikkhu.[1]" First, it is not clear that this qualifies as a "national park" or as a first as described in the article - as the source discusses the problem of excessive development in the area and that its legal authority was established in the 1930s. However, it does point out that we need to expand the beginning of the history section to include earlier precedents (parks, reserves, royal forests). Such as the Bogd Khan Uul mentioned above. Rmhermen (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just about to suggest The New Forest, or Nova Forestae, in Hampshire, established in 1079 by William I of England. Younge1986 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a claim on another web page that "Mackinac National Park was a U.S. national park that existed from 1875 to 1895 on Mackinac Island in northern Michigan, making it the second National Park in the United States after Yellowstone." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_National_Park This might be appropriate as a footnote. Mergy (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Forest, as established in England in 1079, was most certainly not what we would call a national park. It was established as a royal forest, a private hunting territory for royalty. In England and Wales, national parks were established by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the first coming into operation in 1951. The New Forest was the 12th (and, to date, penultimate) park designated, in 2005. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The article currently says, repetitively, that Yellowstone is the first national park. Then, in another place, it says it isn't. Perhaps a more precise definition of "national park" would be helpful. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"National park"[edit]

Why do National Parks start with Yellowstone? Why don't royal parks / preserves count? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem starts in the intro of the article, where in my view the definition is too general. In my understanding a national park is not just any natural preserve; it is a park enjoyed by people. What is great about Yellowstone and other U.S. National parks is that they are open to the public. Sufficient amenities are built to handle visitors needs, and entry fees are modest. On the other hand, a royal hunting preserve or a restricted access wildlife area, where members of the public would be viewed as trespassers, would not count. In the U.S., there are also National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and many other types of natural preserves which have different purposes and access restrictions and are clearly different. The lede of the article, though, just states: "A national park is a reserve of land, declared or owned by a national government, they are protected from most human development and pollution." That doesn't capture what a park is! doncram (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding of the term "royal parks" here, at least as far as they are defined in England. Not only are they open to the public, the public are not usually charged for entering them. However, they are not normally classed as National parks, often being more like municipal parks, and in the United Kingdom, it is usually considered that the first National park was the Peak District, the inspiration for which was drawn from the United States. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

US bias[edit]

There is very little coverage in the history on the development outside the US. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to answer your question about royal parks directly, but a link in the see also section would probably be appropriate at a minimum. I did remove the link to The National Parks since there were several US-specific links already and it read like an advert; that said, while the history section makes it clear that the concept was proposed by an Englishman and also mentions Nordenskiöld, it appears to have come to fruition in the US.
I do agree that there should be more on the development of the concept at the international level by the IUCN, threats to national parks in areas of conflict, and possibly mention of the related concept you brought up. There is an {{expand}} tag, so feel free to add any relevant information. :) Recognizance (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added into the Further Reading section journal articles that have information on national parks in Canada, South America, England, and some other countries including the U.S.; I'll include information from these journal articles into the article as I am able to read them; anyone who is interested in reading these journal articles in order to add to this wikipedia article please feel free to contact me. Nnoell (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical Opposition to National Parks[edit]

For anyone looking into the history of National Parks, historical opposition to the parks on economic, and other grounds may be important to look at to contrast with current economic thriving of the parks (I give economics as one issue that has been contentious, but other issues involve removal of indigenous folks from park territories). For leads to issues of historical U.S. park opposition for economic reasons see: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/nrepa_local_interests_and_conservation_history/C73/L38/ be informative for readers to learn about parallels between opposition interests that are common across national boundaries. I son't have the time yet to work on this, but I will get to this when I can. Nnoell (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Teide[edit]

The claims that Teide is the most visited national park in Europe, although cited from Spanish sources, is extremely dubious. Figures released show between 2.8 million and 3.5 million visitors per year, depending on which year is chosen. The Peak District in England has between 10 million and 22 million visitors. Similarly, the Lake District in England gets about 12 million visitors per year. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in text about origins[edit]

In the "History" section there is description of the establishment of both Yosemite and Yellowstone, which includes the statement that the establishment of Yellowstone was "a process formally completed on October 1, 1890". The Yellowstone article has no mention of that date, while the consolidation of Yosemite as a national park did occur through a bill passed on that date, according to the Yosemite article. It appears that the history of the two parks has become confused in this National Parks article, though it is possible that the 1890 bill addressed both parks. Can someone more knowledgeable than me about the actual history please clear this up? Ted Sweetser (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictures - too many[edit]

We are lucky to have a large number of high quality images of national parks. But for the size of the text in this article we already have to many images. We need to think about what we are trying to illustrate and choose an appropriate number and variety, Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Some articles have more images than text, and they're perfectly workable. Some people are more text-oriented and some more graphics-oriented. Don't assume you speak for even a majority of readers. 76.102.1.129 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To quote from our image guidelines, MOS:Images: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." Rmhermen (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)