Talk:Białowieża Forest

National Park

How come that, with so many edit wars around here, this article remains untouched? Every child knows that the true name of the forest is Puszcza Bialowieska! But seriously, only joking. What I really wanted to ask is whether this article needs some info on the fact that that the whole forest has been a National Park since 15th century? This makes it one of the oldest National Parks still existing...Halibutt 14:06, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You can have it as you are wrong. The true name in which language? The importance of which part of the forest? The information about the belarussian part is that they are felling trees on an astounding rate. So what is important? The part that is well known or the part that might be well known but is not.

Try going there and have a good look.. GerardM 18:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Both names (Belavezhskaya Pushcha and Bialoveza Forest) are equally valid, but refer to different parts of the territory, see the UNESCO site. This article is about the Belarussian part, with brief mentioning of the Polish one. One has all possible rights to replace the Bialowieski National Park redirect by a full-blown article.

I added a piece from UNESCO site. I understand, the information from there is in public domain, unless specifically indicated (like GIS data, which requires donation). Mikkalai 19:12, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page moves

I've moved this page from Belavezhskaya Pushcha to Bialowieza Forest for the following reasons:

• Pushcha doesn't mean anything in English. Replacing it with "forest" seems obvious to me.
• Since the forest is named after a town in Poland, I can see no reason to write its name in Belarussian in the title.

Of course, both Polish and Belarussian names of the forest are still mentioned in the opening paragraph. --Kpalion 07:14, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved it back:

1. it is the official English name, see e.g., the UNESCO list.
2. If you want Bialowieza Forest article about the Polish part, you are welcome to cut material from here to there. Mikkalai 07:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. Google hits: Belavezhskaya Pushcha + Belovezhskaya Pushcha: 7,550 +1,680; 2,410 for "Bialowieza Forest", 5,590 for "Puszcza Białowieska". So much for English language :-) Mikkalai 07:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Correction (English language pages only): Belavezhskaya Pushcha + Belovezhskaya Pushcha: 4,450 + 886; for "Bialowieza Forest": 2,090, for "Puszcza Białowieska" 57 + 163 (ł vs. l) letter. Mikkalai

According to the UNESCO website you keep referring to, the official name of the forest is Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. But I'm not sure whether we really have to copy the strange politically correct solutions of UNESCO; according to the same website, Jerusalem is a separate country!
I also can see no reason for two separate articles about one forest which happens to be divided by a political border. It would be like having one article about Canadian Rocky Mountains and one about US Rocky Mountains.
I suppose that my proposition is the most English you can get. Belovezhskaya Pushcha is just a romanization of the Belarussian name. I'm not going to repeat myself, see explanation above.
And is Google the only arbiter on the English language? --Kpalion 08:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• UNESCO: you are looking at the wrong page. (Do you also think that there is a country Belarus/Poland, mentioned there as well? :-)) Better see [1].
• What's wrong with romanization? It as a name. Do you want me to "translate" my name as well and sign myself as User:Victoriferuos?
• Please note also that the alalogy with, e.g., Volga River being a translation of "reka Volga", will not do. Volga is the actual name of the river, while "Bialowieza", etc. is not the name of the forest. Tsarskoye Selo is not Tsar Village. Mikkalai 18:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not going to argue with you; perhaps you're right. The case for Belovezhskaya Pushcha is that a greater part of the foretst is on the Belorussian side. I'd only like to say thay we were talking about hte same UNESCO site - and it does say Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest. For some strange reason the Belarussian name (used for the Belarussian part of the forest) has only been romanized but the Polish has been was translated. This seems quite awkward to me. Maybe it's beacuse Poles are used to translating foregin names into Polish (e.g. we do translate Tsarskoye Selo as Carskie Sioło) so they also tend to translate names into English. But if we assume that the Belarussian name is what the English speakers use for the whole forest, than it's OK. --Kpalion 21:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

UNESCO: Probably you misunderstood my brief explanation in mocking tone, sorry. At their site they list Belavezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest under the "Belarus/Poland" header, meaning that belarussian part is puscha and polish part is forest. There are quite a few similar case there; e.g.,

• Austria/Hungary
  • Cultural Landscape of Fertö/Neusiedlersee

Indeed, it seems the usage of pushcha/forest is polarized by which side is writing about it, with noticeable bias that "forest" tends to refer to the Polish part, thus producing a possible confusion. How about a trade-off for the common article: Belavezhskaya Pushcha and Bialowieza Forest (slash cannot be used in titles)? With the following introduction:

Bialowieza Primaeval Forest, known as Беловежская пуща in Belarus, which is traditionally transliterated as 'Belavezhskaya Pushcha, and Puszcza Białowieska in Poland, traditinally translated as Bialowieza Forest, is a ancient virginal forest reserve stradling....

Mikkalai 23:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this would be too awkward and even worse. The title should be either Bialowieza Forest or Belavezhskaya Pushcha. I believe the former would be better, but, well, I could live with the latter. After all, Bialowieza Forest redirects here anyway. I would also simplify the intro:

Białowieża Primaeval Forest, known as Belavezhskaya Pushcha (Беловежская пуща) in Belarus and Puszcza Białowieska in Poland, is a ancient virginal forest stradling....

And BTW, if we were really translating that name (Polish or Belarussian, doesn't matter) into English, we'd get: "White Tower Forest"; but of course I don't mean to go that far.

--Kpalion 23:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. You almost convinced me. If someone else comes and renames the article your way I will no longer object. (Let me strike this out for not to encourage someone unnecessarily :-) This summer I'll be visiting Belarus. Shall we meet somewhere in the Belavezhski Forest? Mikkalai 00:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd do the renaming myself, but I'm somehow involved so I don't know if it counts. As to the meeting somewhere in between - might be interesting. However, crossing the border might be a problem since Belarus is the only Poland's neighbour to still have mines on the frontier...Halibutt 01:25, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You guys are too funny, and Mikkalai, can you bring back one of those mines from the western front? You know it does not really matter what the name is, that is supposed to be the value of redirects, you can makes all variations of the names redirects and bold face them in the lead-in to the main article. I vote for the Russian name, after all wasn't it the Imperial Tsars that originally named it? (If not excuse me for starting another controversy). Anyway, whatever you slavs decide to do in your nationalistic fervour remember that really it isn't Polish or Belarusian or Russian or anything else, it is just part of our common world heritage (and beautiful, I visited the Belarusian part of it three years ago around May 1). — © Alex756 05:23, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, the name sake for the forest is the village (now a town) of Białowieża which in turn is named after a "white tower", or a white wooden manor built there for the king Wladyslaw Jagiello. I expanded the history section since apparently we don't need two separate articles. Also, the forest stands there since some 25 000 years, and it's been divided for 60, so there's not really much sense behind such a division. Halibutt 21:20, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ded Moroz is not an invention of the Soviet Union as far as I can tell. see: http://www.santalady.com/gg/moroz.html — © Alex756 07:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Britannica title

The Britannica name for this article is Belovezhskaya Forest.  Grue  14:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Britannica used the Russian word. Very stupid of them. Again they demonstrated that they are not up to the high encyclopedic standard that they set to themeselves. --rydel 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody explain to me why the name is rendered in a Polish spelling with all the stresses and apostrophies and whatever-those-things-are-called on top of the letters. To borrow KNewman arguments, some people are not even sure how to pronounce it, let alone how to write it. And some of them don't have Polish language support, so all they see is little cubes instead of certain letters. I believe the Russian word is better known. Another option is to English it as Belavezha Forest or White Tower Forest or whatever. --Ghirlandajo 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Brtiannica article [2] is indeed called: Belovezhskaya Forest and starts like this:

Belovezhskaya Forest, also called Belovezh Forest and Bialowieza Forest , Belarusian: Belovezhskaya Pushcha , Polish: Puszcza Bialowieska

forest in western Belarus and eastern Poland. It is one of the largest surviving areas of primeval ...

I think this alone is enough to settle the debate because I never saw a difference between the prevailing usage in English media (I use LexisNexis Major paper search) and the title picked by Britannica. If anyone's in doubt, I will do a media search. So, whoever has time, please list this at WP:RM or I will do it myself when I get to this. --Irpen 17:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the current name of this article, it simply seems the most obvious option. Both Polish, Belarusian and Russian names for the forest are coined after the town of Białowieża, which has been in Poland since its creation. Hence it seems to be natural to translate the name after the original name-sake, and not after its translations to Russian or Belarusian. Otherwise we'd have dozens of names to chose from, most of them being but transcriptions of Russian or Belarussian names. Halibutt 09:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Polish name is derived after the Ruthenian Belaya Vezha, Belarus. As I've said before, Belavezha Forest is the most suitable name. --Ghirlandajo 10:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems factually inaccurate as most sources I know support the Białowieża ethymology. Could you name the sources to support the Ruthenian version? Also, if it has to be a Russian name, then we'd have to chose from Belaya Vezha Forest, Belavezha Forest, Belavezhskaya Forest, Byelovezhskaya Forest, Bielovezhskaya Forest and dozens of others... Halibutt 10:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That's because you consult Polish sources only. Belarusian sources say otherwise. The village, first mentioned in the 16th century, is named after the forest, which is named after the 13th-century tower. I don't assume that the Russian name should be applied, Belarusian is quite OK for me. --Ghirlandajo 10:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian is quite ok for me as well, though I still find the "tower" history incredible. Contrary to that structure, the village of Białowieża has been the administrative centre of the area (and the forest) since 16th century and still serves that purpose. On the other hand, that mysterious building seems to be quite interesting, but hardly of any significance to that forest's history. Halibutt 16:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, Kamenets is the historic centre of this district, and the forest formerly adjoined the town. Secondly, the tower used to be so important a structure that the city apparently borrowed its name: kamen is stone, cf. Kamenets-Podolsky with its fortress and Kamenskoye with its fortified church. --Ghirlandajo 16:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to what I know the town took the name after the stony embankment of the nearby river, as the Tower of Kamianiec is made entirely of bricks (which are not white, BTW). Secondly, that is the version mentioned in the wiki article on Kamianiec (The name of the place derives from the Slav word kamienny meaning stony, as it was founded atop a stony rise.). Also, the version with that town being the centre of the area seems highly dubious as it was Białowieża where the seat of the forest administration was established and that town was actually built for that purpose in the very heart of the forest while Kamianiec was (and still is) to the east of the eastern edge of the forest. Halibutt 17:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't presume to possess an expertise on the etymology of Kamenets, but it is widely known that the toponyms starting with kamen- were associated with fortified places. It does not really matter whether fortifications were built of stone or brick: I don't think Kamenets-Podolsky is built of limestone either. In old Ruthenian languages, brick churches (i.e., Kiev's St Sophia) are called the stone ones (каменные). The same applies to other srtuctures as opposed to the wooden one. The epithet "white" also had varying meanings: "White Ruthenia", or Belarus, hardly takes its name from the colour. That it was in Bialowieza that the forest's administration was established, may explain the village's name, derived from the nearby forest. --Ghirlandajo 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Or the other way around. To make it short, unless we can find any proof that the forest was named the way it still is before Białowieża was founded, I believe we should stick to common interpretation. Halibutt 21:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. And the common interpretation is that the forest is named after Bela Vezha, or the White Tower. --Ghirlandajo 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Any sources to back that up? Halibutt 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Try to google for "forest", "belarus", "white tower" - and you'll get plenty of links. --Ghirlandajo 12:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I browsed the first page of such search and it seems that, while many authors properly translate the name of the forest (as it means the White Tower Forest in both Polish and Belarusian), none of them mentions that the name stems from the Kamenets tower. In fact this site uses the term The Belovezha dense forest is unique beauty of, which would suggest that the name is a relative of the name of the town of Belovezha - called Bialowieza in Polish. Only the Brest Online claims that the name was taken after the tower, but it also suggests that the name of the tower was changed much later, so there seems to be some logical flaw in such statement.

On the contrary, the Polish wiki article explains the naming history pretty well. In my harsh translation, the story goes like this: In early Middle Ages, until 13th century, the Bialowieza Forest was not a single entity and was rather a part of a greater primaeval forest complex ranging from Polesie to Grodno. Some settlers have arrived there both from Lithuania and Mazovia, but such settlements were scarce and dispersed. There were also signs of Yotvingian settlements, which are known to our times because of many Baltic toponyms in the area. In 15th century the forest was divided onto several parts, each of them attached to a different manor as its property. What is now the Bialowieza Forest was divided between the manors of Bielsk, Kamieniec and Wolkowysk. Hence the names used were Puszcza bielska, puszcza kamieniecka and puszcza wolkowyska. After the founding of the manor of Bialowieza, it became the name-sake for the northern part of the puszcza kamieniecka. Increasing settlement effort brought the existence of the puszcza bielska to an end, and the only remaining part of it is a tiny puszcza ladzka. Puszcza wolkowyska was divided onto smaller parts, among others on Swislocz forest, Mscigobow forest and Jalow forest. The latter ceased to exist due to settlements, and the privately-owned forest of Swislocz (belonging to the Tyszkiewicz family of Swislocz) was attached to the Bialowieza forest in 1832. Thus, what is now the Bialowieza forest, is in fact a conglomerate of the surviving parts of the puszczas of Bialowieza, Ladzk and Swislocz. Seems to explain your controversies pretty well to me. Halibutt 15:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to the naming issue

While it was mentioned before, I don't think enough was made of the fact that the Belarusian section of the reserve is nearly 18 times bigger than the relatively tiny section in Poland. Given that, it simply seems inexplicable that this article remains under the Polish (or Polish/English name). I understand some think the name comes from a Polish town, but there is also evidence that it is named after a location in present-day Belarus. At any rate, both countries call it something different--but one of them has over 90% of the reserve, and the other less than 10%. I'd say that gives the Belarusian name pride of place. --James Honan-Hallock 04:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As pointed out above, we have yet to see a single reference that would back up the version, according to which the forest was named in 15th century after the 19th century romantic name of a tower in a town to the east of the eastern edge of the forest. But of course, we could invent a compromise name here, some sort of White Tower Forest. This might border WP:NOR, but perhaps would suit some of us. Halibutt 06:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See EB's article for a reference and check its name too. --Irpen 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My move: the Polish name is Puszcza Białowieska, the belarussian name is <whatever>. The English name is "Bialowieza Forest". A title that mixes them is simply ridiculous and that move was made without any discussion. I didn't notice it simply because the article edited very rarely and it didin't pop up in my wathclist.

So I reverted to the previous version which, you Halibutt should remember, was achieved after long and frustrating talks, so I am not giving it up easily now. mikka (t) 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read above. There are concerns that a different name may be proper in English. Some point out to Belovezhskaya Puscha used by 2004 Britannica. Others think that Belavezha Forest would be all right, because the forest lies predominantly in Belarus. UNESCO employs double name, too. As the issue surfaces every month, I don't think that Bialowieza Forest is a consensus just now. --Ghirlandajo 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read above. I am not saying it is a consensus now. I am saying it was, after the previous talk. Also I am saying that a half-polish half-english (and semi-translated, too) title is not cool, colleague. the same my opinion as about semi Russian. The full name is "Bel... Forest", not "Bel..." We don't have a name Lower Novgorod for Nizhny Novgorod. While I am sure EB had its reasons for their strange name version, they didn't provide them for us, so we must talk it over ourselves. mikka (t) 20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On Google Book Search, we find:

• Bialowierza 161 books found mentioning the term
• Belovezhskaya 30 books
• Belavezha 8 books
• Belaveskaya 0 books

To be more exact

• Bialowieza Forest 115 books
• Belovezhskaya Pushcha 20 books
• Belovezhskaya forest 10 books

To me at least this is strong evidence that Bialowierza is much more frequently used in English publications and hence the article should remain under the title Bialowieza Forest. Balcer 03:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that, particularly in a case where no one foreign-language name should be preferred, common English usage should determine the page name. While the forest is perhaps not often discussed in English, to the extent it is, it is certainly without Polish language diacritics. As someone who is taking university-level Polish, I have nothing against diacritics like ł and ż, but while they mean something to me they mean nothing to 99% of English speakers. Given this, and the fact that most of this forest is in a country which uses the Cyrillic alphabet (whether for Russian or, less commonly, Belarusian), I don't think it makes much sense to include them in the title. By all means, they should be in the Polish name in the first sentence. My concern with the UNESCO name, though, is that an English speaker would pronounce it "Bee-al-o-wheeze-a", which is far from how it's pronounced in either Polish or Belarusian. The main thing is the lack of an implication of the "zh" sound signified by ż, which exists in the Polish, Belarusian, and Russian pronounciations. Any thoughts? --James Honan-Hallock 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "pronounce": It is well known to the whole world that English cannot read what other people write, so IMO no big deal here. I know several people with name Pesic, who know that it sounds funny in Slavic langs, but have no special desire for the "correct" Peshich. mikka (t) 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Merges

Text from several articles of individual trees in Bialowieza Forest has been merged to this article. OzLawyer 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is our long-forgotten family home

Białowieża Forest is Belarus ethnic area. Maybe a group of Russian Starovyer is living there, but it's rather not the case of Starovyer. Xx236 12:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added coordinates with the "coord" template, showing up at the page top, and in second infobox, since I noticed fields for them there. I don't know if the coords in the infobox would get picked up by Google Maps / Earth, so I also used the coord template, which I know does. I wish there was an easy way to footnote or somehow reference the coord template so you could point to the source of the coordinates. I figured with a forest that crossing an international boundary there might be some disagreement over which coordinates would be best. Since I don't know a way to show my source in the page itself, I'm doing it here. These coordinates are from: NGA GNS gazetteer (I searched for "Belovezhskaya Pushcha"). I'm not sure if I can link directly to one of the search results pages, but this might work: Belovezhskaya Pushcha (BGN Standard. Pfly (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To add to what I wrote above -- I realize the infobox is about Poland's national park, and perhaps should have different coordinates. According to the Poland's Bialowieski Park website's maps page, the coordinates are N 52°42'04.9" E23°52'10.2". I won't change the infobox right now, but just leave it up to others -- does it matter? There's a couple maps of Poland's part of the forest that look interesting, just as a sidenote, this one and that one. But I can't read Polish so can't make much sense of them. Pfly (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining part of forest in Europe?

The article states: "It is the only remaining part of the immense forest which once spread across the European Plain." Naturally Białowieża Forest is not the only forest in Europe. It is not even the only virgin forest. It is not even the biggest virgin forest in the European Plain if the plain is defined to stretch to the Ural Mountains: there are vast pristine forests in Russia, (for example, see Virgin Komi Forests). But it would be safe to say, for example: Białowieża is the biggest virgin forest in Central Europe. Krasanen (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Date linked...

..."because it is relevant in the context" (according to the comment recently added after 1410). Can Richard or someone else explain what this means? All dates are relevant in the context, otherwise we wouldn't mention them at all, but why does this particular one require linking?--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context is that it's the date of a battle, not just someone's birth date or another arbitrary date without such context. It seems to me quite possible that someone reading the article might want to look up the historical context of that battle, and if so, the link would be useful. I agree however that it's a rather marginal case, and I'd not be too troubled if it remained unlinked. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dąb Car

Someone should integrate the two photos from the mreged page:

• 
  Trunk of the oak
  File:Oak in Bialowieza3('Tsar' Oak).jpg
• 
  Crown of the 'Tsar' Oak
  File:Oak in Bialowieza2('Tsar' Oak).jpg

Perhaps the external links as well:

• Amazing trees in Białowieża National Park
• Białowieża Forest - Oaks

Note the interlang links:

• de:Zar-Eiche
• pl:Dąb Car
• ru:Царь-дуб

76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsar Oak

Note the leftovers from the merge from Tsar Oak:

• 
  'Tsar' Oak
  Image:oak in Bialowieza2('Tsar' Oak).jpg
• 
  'Tsar' Oak – whole tree
  Image:oak in Bialowieza3('Tsar' Oak).jpg

• pl:Dąb Car

• Oaks in Bialowieza Forest

76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tsar Oak Dąb Car

There's also:

• 
  File:Oak in Bialowieza1('Tsar' Oak).jpg

76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

the statement "Soviet marauders continued the slaughter until February 1919" cannot be true as the Soviets were too far from the forest till 1920! Yogi555 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Map?

Since this is such an important location (historically and politically), it would be very useful if there was a map to indicate where along the Poland/Belarus border this forest is situated. I imagine a map of the border or the two countries probably exists on the Commons, the forest just needs to be located on it, with an indication of how much of it is located in each country. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There's now a map in the infobox. Ajh1492 (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Belarusian name

Re. this edit:

• Firstly, it was not me who introduced the Russian name into the article. If you look closely at my edits, you will see that I changed only one instance of (Belarusian) belAvezhkaya to (Russian) belOvezhkaya. The rest of the article already used the Russian name. The bigger part of my edits consisted of placing {{nativename}} tags around the Russian and Polish names and including the names in Cyrillic script.
• Secondly, the Russian name is the official one in Belarus. You might want to read up on Belarusian language politics, especially the post-1995 policies (after the referendum that made Russian nominally 'co-official' but in effect re-established Russian as the dominant language). Sources for the Russian name being the official one include UNESCO ([3]), the Belarusian government ([4]) and the Belarusian ministry of foreign affairs ([5]). For a real-world example, see e.g. this photo. Notice the Russian name on the sign.
• Thirdly, I did actually include the Belarusian name in the article, although noting that it isn't official.
  

Unless you can prove that the Belarusian name is the official one, stop reverting my edits. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind if the article gets split one day into two separate articles based on national borders even though the core text would probably remain the same because the UNESCO World Heritage Site was awarded to one (!) not two forests. What is unacceptable however, is ramming the Russian {{native name|ru}} and {{lang|ru|}} into this article which has no connection whatsoever to modern Russia. Please stop doing this. More new ideas below, Poeticbent talk 16:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. This has nothing to do with the geographical location of the forest (which indeed isn't Russia) but simply with its official name in Belarus. The official name in Belarus is the Russian one. Therefore, this is the one that should feature in the infobox as the official name. By the way, you seem to be taking the name of the "native name" template too literally. This is not a POV-pushing template to suggest that the Russian name is in fact the 'native name' of the forest. It is simply a template for easily formatting a foreign-language name. Please see the template's description. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not engage in wp:original research. Provide a working link to reliable third-party source that supports your claims. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your accusation of original research is unfounded. For establishing the official name of an entity, secondary/tertiary sources are not needed; it is sufficient to cite the authorities who are responsible for the official name. After all, the official name is the one that responsible authorities assign to it. Any other names, no matter how linguistically sound or politically correct they are, are by definition non-official. In this case the relevant authority is the Belarusian government ([6], [7]). Additionally, UNESCO ([8]) uses the Russian name as one of the names under which the forest is inscribed in the World Heritage List (the other being the Polish name). So there are two authoritative sources on the Russian name being the official one. You, on the other hand, did not provide one single source on the Belarusian name being official. If you cannot provide one, I will reinstate my modifications to the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Go put your energies into Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park, Białowieża Forest is going to get cleaned up to just talk about the Forest, not the parks. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ajh1492, you are finding yourself on the wrong side of the argument. You argue that "the two native names (...) from the UN WH listing" are to be used. That is exactly what I made sure by my edits: the two names inscribed on the World Heritage List are the Russian and the Polish one. Simply clicking that link should convince you that the World Heritage List does not include the Belarusian name.
There is also the fact that Russian is the native language of 70.2% of Belarusians (versus only 23.4% for the Belarusian language) which means that the Russian name is not only the official name, but also the modern local name of the forest. Which are two reasons for using it on Wikipedia per WP:NCGN.
I must say it is very rude to threaten to 'report me', while in fact I am the only one who does obey the Wikipedia guideline of WP:Verifiability. Use of the Russian name for the forest is well-sourced. The Belarusian name is not sourced at all. And I literally mean at all: not only has no one provided a source for the Belarusian name having any official status, there is also no source given for «Белавежская пушча» being an actual Belarusian-language name for the forest in the first place. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Ajh1492, please desist from pushing for an edit war on this article. If, as per your comment below, you intend to create a separate article for the region in question as per the discussion to split it below, be certain that it is accepted via the proper channels. In the meantime, the accusations of POV push from TaalVerbeteraar are completely unfounded as the infobox for this article should adhere to Wikipedia geographical templates. In this case, the closest is probably that of being a forest. Ultimately, that is irrelevant as, if you check the assigned values for these parameters, regional type templates all adhere to the basics of native name 1, native language 1, native name 2, native language 2, etc. The parameter guidelines are explicit: the nomenclature is to adhere to the list of ISO 639-1 codes and NOT transliterations/transcriptions into Latin where the native language/s are non-Latin.

Belarusian script is Cyrillic, therefore, if concessions are to be made allowing the Belarusian form of the name, it must appear in Belarusian Cyrillic. Whether it appeals to you or not, no matter how you look at it, Belarus has two official languages - being Belarusian and Russian - therefore the Russian version of the name must also be included. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the article maybe?

The treatment of transboundary protected areas on wikipedia is inconsistent currently. Pieniny National Park (Poland) and Pieniny National Park (Slovakia) are separate articles, while Białowieża Forest is one. Lower Oder Valley International Park (for the whole) and Lower Oder Valley National Park (for one of the parts) as two separate articles is yet another varian of organising things. Should not it all be taken to some uniform variant, whichever one makes more sense?.. AntonBryl (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone would have to write these two articles first: Białowieża Forest National Park and Belavezhskaya Pushcha National Park. Only then, the "Forest" article could be trimmed to a transboundary protected area. See above for more of the ongoing problems with POV pushing, Poeticbent talk 16:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the forest, not about the national parks. Using your example, it's equivalent to the Pieniny article. Ajh1492 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no contradictions here. Pieniny is a considerably short article featuring a link to Pieniny National Park (Poland) article which is about twice that size. Surprisingly enough, the link to Pieniny National Park (Slovakia) is missing from it, although it should be added. I was proposing something along the same lines basically, to resolve the conflict similar to what has been going on at Karkonosze since a few years already between Polish and Czech Wikipedians. Poeticbent talk 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Go have fun, I've split the two national parks into their own articles pulling from a couple sources. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)