Jump to content

Talk:Chernobyl exclusion zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It would be a big overhaul, but this article is filled with subtle historical inaccuracies, plus a lot of redundancies and discrepancies with the other Chernobyl articles. Anyone want to help me take on a massive edit? Mfrphoto (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major source of information is the authoritative article by Zbigniew Jaworowski, former Chairman of UNSCEAR, which can be accessed at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to help incorporate this invaluable information into the Chernobyl articles. Anarchie76 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone is inappropriate alternative name because zona in colloquial Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian means "jail". Also, we need redirects here from "the forth - Fourth Zone" and the "Chernobyl zone". I have honestly tried to work with redirect templates today, but they're above my knowledge so far:).

Would some movie-concerned Wikifellow link this page to the films portraying exactly the Forth Zone (unlike Stalker). Take a look at [1] - if you read Russian (and have a cheap cable connection : )

Now, the only obstacle to remove stub template is I think the lack of maps. Experts? Michael, Steshcke?AlexPU

The guy was right: redirects are needed indeed. I found out that Chernobyl accident has neither links here nor mentions of (!?). Chornobyl zone is also OK. Ukrained 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on us, AlexPU :). I followed your typo like a fool and created erroneous redirect! Ukrained 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And let's capitalize some redirect names. Ukrained 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to use "Exclusion Zone" as the main term and link instead of "Zone of Alienation". "Exclusion Zone" is the term the institutions within the Exclusion Zone use themselves, and which are used in international project papers like for UN projects etc. I do not want to just overwrite your content, this is why you may see this as a friendly suggestion and contribtuion for you to consider. If you would like to have a photo of the model of the reactor after the accident on the page, let me know, I would make a good one available for this purpose on Commons. Other stuff and text maybe available on request, like a photo of the logo of the power plant (ChNPP) displayed near the red forest (the one that burnt from a radioactive dust cloud). This is my first Wiki text, please excuse in case I make a mistake with anything. Othertwice1 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A motorcycle trip inside the zone (later confirmed as a hoax)"

[edit]

Okay why is this even an external link if it's being called a hoax? Talk about being hypocritical, we're giving free advertising to someone who rigged the whole thing apparently just to get some attention. If it is to stay then it has to be discussed because it actually managed to get peoples attention back onto what happened.

Either it should be discussed or deleted, not just left as a festering link to a hoax. 83.100.152.98 00:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was me who marked the report as a hoax. I admit, it was a bit harsh: Helena (or whatever her real name is) did go to the Zone. However, not on a bike (she only took her gear and helmet), and certainly not by herself but with other people who also paid for the organized tour (seriously, do you really expect people who back in the Soviet times were feared by NATO generals to simply let a "pretty girl on a bike" ride in? Come on) --Bicycle repairman 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPG's?

[edit]

From the 'Status' section: Numerous short-term tours and research expeditions into the zone are organized for Ukrainian and foreign citizens (mostly scientists, politicians, and the occasional computer game development team for RPG development). That last one sounds dubious. Pendragon39 16:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a bit of a joke. Maybe it happened once and one of the people in question added it here. Personally I don't think there's any point in saying "Ukrainian and foreign citizens" either (there aren't many places closed specifically to foreigners in Ukraine any more) and there's not a heck of a lot of point in listing the other professions either. I don't even think it's true to say "mostly..."; anyone (e.g. tourists) can, I'm told, book a tour from Kiev for between $100 and $200, and if you just drive to the zone, as I have, it's possible to avoid the checkpoints on the main roads by "getting lost" on tracks in the forest. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 16:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've been there - please modify the sentence to make it more accurate :) Pendragon39 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I was just being chicken and hiding out on the talk page because for some odd reason these Chernobyl-related articles seem to get ever-so controversial! But you're right, I should make a change, hang on... ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good :) Pendragon39 00:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing Game/reality?

[edit]

"There is also a complex social system of STALKERS that salvage artifacts from the radioactive anomalies that the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant has caused."

I cannot believe that this would be true, but it more sounds like straightly taken from the game "STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl". Guess someonehas mixed up reality and game. Can someone confirm and change this? (i would have changed the page if i was 100% certain). Of course, i'm certain there are no anomalies like those in that game, but since i'm not very into radioactivity, i'm not sure if there are things at all called anomalies when it comes to radition. (As in maybe a local higher level of radiation?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.67.3.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is stated in the first section of the "S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl" page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.L.K.E.R.:_Shadow_of_Chernobyl
"Some terminology of the game ("The Zone", "Stalker") as well as the background idea is borrowed from the popular science fiction book Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, as well as the 1979 film Stalker, which was adapted from the book."
As far as I can find, STALKERS are not a real thing. There are people who loot the site, as mentioned in some of the Chernobyl articles, but they are not called STALKERS, nor do they have a complex social system. 205.211.50.10 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly a pisstake. Some of the research scientists who work near the Zone call themselves Stalkers because of the culture surrounding the Zone, but the guys who grab bits and pieces of metal in Chernobyl and fence it in Kiev or online arn't stalkers.--70.178.224.225 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are people taking stuff from the area and selling it. But stalker isn't the (correct) term for them. They're more-or-less scrap hunters. Even I thought about going there and selling what I can find, you can make a hefty fortune off of all that stuff left over from the evacuations. Royaljared (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Stalker film to Chernobyl incident?

[edit]

"Stalker is a 1979 film directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, based on a 1972 novel by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky entitled Roadside Picnic. Both describe a mysterious and forbidden "zone", depopulated of human life by an unexplained disaster, and Tarkovsky's film in particular has come to symbolize the exclusion zone in the minds of many commentators."

The film Stalker, as well as the novel, are more based off of the Mayak incident, and the film was actually made seven years before the Chernobyl incident.--127.0.0.1 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's included because it portrays the idea of the "zone" which was never an issue of the Mayak incident, so it's still relevant. Pongley (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for "cultural references" and not cultural coincidences. Removing the line about Stalker unless someone can find a source stating the naming of The Zone was a direct reference to the Tarkovsky film. (68.34.31.6 (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)) It could not have been an influence: The film was made in the decade before the disaster. Nevertheless, there's evidence that the Tarkovsky movie and the book it was based upon was used as a cultural reference when people began to talk about the Zone: 'Stalking' became applied to activities in the Zone as a result of that film. I'll eventually get around to writing this evidence into the page. -- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 17:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bunker

[edit]

I heared that there is a large radiation-protected facility under the radar building still functioning. It includes food, clean air and energy reserves. It it true?--212.1.251.138 22:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history section is too sentimental for Wikipedia. Can someone change? (SirGrotius 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Map?

[edit]

Now it's been a few years since I took a course in geography, but 30Km is a pretty range. does anyone know where Chernobyl is in Ukraine? Maybe it would be helpful to the more map-minded if they knew where it was. Sixer Fixer (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates?

[edit]

I've commented out the coordinates (for now). Can someone explain why we have coordinates for this article? (especially displayed in the title). Are the coordinates in the centre of the zone? Please don't bite me if I haven't understood. --smadge1 (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoD4: MW

[edit]

Added to the Cultural precedents and references section, someone forgot that Call of Duty 4 has a level set in Prypiat. Dragonshardz (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looting

[edit]

Despite police control, intruders often infiltrate the perimeter and remove polluted materials, from electronics to toilet seats, especially in Pripyat

Even if there is really such a big market these days for pre-1986 Soviet-manufactured electronic goods would it be common to actually find such items in working order having been stored unused in less than ideal conditions for over two decades ? 86.112.254.163 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are looking for precious metals I think, such as gold, silver, platinum, rather than for working electronics.--Dojarca (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're looking for ANY metal, as well as for wires, pipes and non-rusting plumbing parts:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.151.124 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spamsection

[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, the "Cultural precedents and references" has become a spamdrive for a growing number of people. I suggest to clean it up from everything except Strugatsky novel and Tarkovsky film (which still need citations), and I`m going to be bold and do it myself in a week. Ukrained (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

I see a number of minor factual errors in this article. (I spent the past year working in the Chernobyl zone). However, I am new to editing Wikipedia entries so please look and see if I followed conventions correctly. Thanks. Mfrphoto (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)mfrphoto[reply]

I've made some factual corrections, but there are some other problems I refrained from fixing as I am not positive about the facts. These are, in order:

1...in order to evacuate the local population : I don't believe the zone was created until after the evacuation. 2 It would be useful to add an explanation of the 4 different zones in the Purpose and status section. 3 Zone authorities pay much attention to protecting such spots from tourists, scrap hunters and wildfires : this may be true on paper but is certainly not true in reality 4 It is partly excluded from the regular civil rule. : Can anyone tell me what this means? 5 The flora and fauna section needs to be updated and made more coherent. 6. Yaniv station: never heard it called this name so I changed it but perhaps someone knows better than I. Mfrphoto (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd agree. It's the First Zone, not the Fourth. And it is entirely in Kyivska Oblast. The railway station in question is called "industrial siding of the ChAES" now according to this map, although Yaniv station did exist somewhere on that line before the disaster. However, the terminus of the passenger service, according to this schedule, is Semykhody.


Zone dimensions

[edit]

The phrase "Chornobyl's'ka zona оr Четверта зона, Chetverta zona) is the 30 km/19 mi exclusion zone around the site" is misleading. Dimensions (radius) of the most contaminated closed zone exceed(ed) 30 km by far in almost every direction. The name "The 30 Kilometer Zone" in Russian was just a lie, characteristic to Soviet authorities. 193.40.133.134 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the full geographical extent of the zone of alienation? How many square kilometers are we talking about? The maps is useful, but it's hard to estimate from that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.152.138 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl Stalking

[edit]

Has anyone started the move to the Zone of alienation? If not, I can C.C.Peterson (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless map?

[edit]

Currently, this article gives a map of the Zone of Alienation.


Can someone explain the characteristics of the different zones? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the legend on the map for some information. Somitcw (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

This article has a lot of uncited statements. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article re-name

[edit]

The article name seems long and formal (currently "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone"). In English, it is often just called the "Chernobyl exclusion zone". Perhaps I'm wrong, and we need to say "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant" in full, and "Exclusion Zone" needs to be capitalized as a proper noun. I'd like to see what others thought about simplifying the article name. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ukrainian official name is: Зона відчуження Чорнобильської АЕС Which translates directly as Chernobyl NPP Zone of Alienation where NPP stands for Nuclear Power plant (атомна електростанція)

You are right, though, that it is most often refered to in English as the "Chernobyl Exclusion Zone" (Zone of Alienation gets used rarely, and ocasionally the now-inaccurate colloquialism "30km Zone" gets used in English and Ukrainian). This is backed up by its use by scientists and scholars on the Zone. Google scholar sees "Chernobyl NPP Exclusion Zone" in about 75 results, "Chernobyl nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone" in about 25 resulst and "Chernobyl Exclusion Zone" in over 200 results.

In reality, the usual borders of the Zone as it is known is actually a some of two parts of a four-zone system: the central exclusion Zone and bits of the "Compulsory reloaction Zone": http://www.chernobyl.info/Default.aspx?tabid=130&map=58_en exact definition of borders is difficult (officail documentation prduce different boundaries, though one set is more common than another), but that's another issue. --Cooper42 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody messed up the article naming, which is, officially and clearly, the "Zone of alienation" in Ukrainian. We need it back. 93.75.164.119 (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use "official" names always. We use the name that is most common and best understood in the English language world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Google by "English-language world") than they are almost equal in usage:
No, don't mean by Google, at least not those searches or results. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Area

[edit]

"it initially existed as an area of 30 kilometer radius ... it now covers a much larger area ... The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2"

That doesn't seem to make sense. The area of a circle with radius 30 km exceeds 2600 sq km. Should this be rephrased or corrected?

Martin Rattigan (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct. π*302 = 2,827km2 as the area. What it should claim is that it now covers a larger area of the territory of Ukraine; given that much of the 30km radius zone was in Belarus (which has it's own Zone / 'nature reserve'). Will edit accordingly --Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 04:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Not sure how to file an actual report for it, and I don't have time to figure it out (last minute research paper night). Link #8 ("Zoning of radioactively contaminated territory of Ukraine according to actual regulations") goes to an error page. Either a replacement link is needed or it must be removed. Mazt (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half-life

[edit]

In 1986, Wormwood poisoned the Earth that also made one-third of the Earths fresh waters bitter.
But, that was over 30 years ago.

Radioactive Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days so is almost gone in six months and zilch before a year is up.
Radioactive Caesium-137 ( a.k.a. Cesium-137 ) has a half-life of 30 years so should be half of the original poisoning by today.
Fresh water flowing into the oceans should have reduced bitter water to almost nothing.
If the exclusions zones are based on radioactivity, then they should have shrunk.

Did the zones shrink or were the limits lowered?

Confiscated/Closed Zone was:
Greater than 40 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137
should now be:
Greater than 20 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137?

Permanent Control Zone was:
15 to 40 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137
should now be:
7.5 to 20 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137?

Periodic Control Zone was:
5 to 15 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137
should now be:
2.5 to 7.5 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137?

Unnamed Zone was:
1 to 15 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137
should now be:
0.5 to 7.5 curies per square kilometer of Caesium-137?

We have the same issue coming up in another 30 years.

Other weird questions:

Are the remaining people living in the exclusion being supplied with Prussian Blue to flush Caesium-137 quickly or doesn't the government care?
Did the government supply non-radioactive Iodine before the Iodine-131 was gone in six months to a year?
Why wasn't Strontium-90 ( also a thirty year half-life ) mentioned and are people told to not drink the milk for a few hundred years?

Somitcw (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wormwood"? You mean, that doesn't-exist killer star/asteroid/wachamacallit? Please keep that stuff off here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.107 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add Chernobyl Tourism section

[edit]

We have recently sought to have an article placed in the namespace about a company which conducts guided tours of the Chernobyl site and it has been suggested by the reviewer that it be merged with this article instead. The company is CHERNOBYLwel.come and the draft article is Draft:CHERNOBYLwel.come. Your opinions would be welcome. Gibmul (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone#Chernobyl_tourism as recommended by the reviewer User:AngusWOOF Your comments are welcome.Gibmul (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020 forest fire

[edit]

Do we have any good sources about the forest fires in the exclusion zone right now? Here's a video from the ISRN = Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire showing how the smoke from the fire has swept across a fair bit of Europe. Boud (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl or Chornobyl

[edit]

The article uses "Chernobyl" and "Chornobyl" in different places. While both are valid, although I'd suggest perhaps "Chernobyl" is more widely known and used, shouldn't one be picked to be consistent throughout the content? I can see some cited sources use Chornobyl in the cite URL or title, which should possibly be left alone. Jamesmacwhite (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered about this. A check with Google confirms that "Chernobyl" is overwhelmingly the preferred spelling, at least for English speakers. I agree it should be left as "Chornobyl" if spelled that way in outside sources, but if there's no objection to me changing the other instances, I'll do so. Tisnec (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Chernobyl" as that is the name of the article because it is without question the common name. It is inconsistent because there are always driveby editors who ignore policy and try to change this. Mellk (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20,000

[edit]

@Sredmash: Multiple sources for this information. I am wondering why you have removed information which was sourced. Here are sources for the 20,000 number

  1. Newsweek
  2. National Geographic
  3. Power Technology
  4. Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures

Bruxton (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on one of your sources at random and it did not contain the 20,000 years statement. The figure is arbitrary and flies in the face of common sense, regardless of how many uneducated journalists repeat it in a game of telephone. The primary hazards of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone are Cesium-137, Strontium-90 and transuranic elements like Plutonium and Americium. The former two nuclides will be essentially gone in under 300 years. The Plutonium and Americium will be around for much longer than that, for up to hundreds of thousands of years. So the 20,000 figure is wrong no matter what approach you use. And that is entirely disregarding what the definition of "habitability" is, without which it is a meaningless scare quote that does not belong in an informative article, just one meant to play on emotions.Sredmash (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sredmash: I am not sure as an editor you personally have the right to reject multiple RS which repeat the claim. We must follow the RS and not decide unilaterally that journalists have arrived at a figure of 20,000 through "a game of telephone".
Newsweek " It is thought that the reactor site will not become habitable again for at least 20,000 years, according to a 2016 report."
National Geographic " More than 30 years on, scientists estimate the zone around the former plant will not be habitable for up to 20,000 years."
Power Technology - I may have linked the incorrect source, it is this one. "Meanwhile, Reactor No. 4, now covered by the New Safe Confinement, is estimated to remain highly radioactive for up to 20,000 years."
Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures "According to some experts, it will take another 20,000 years before the area immediately surrounding the Chernobyl plant - called the exlusion zone .... fit for habitation."
Bruxton (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor you have no obligation to seek out and repost the least-informed and least-useful statements, simply because they have a source. All those quotes are very poor quality information by Wikipedia standards, employing weasel words. Why not go find the actual sources that quote these "experts" and "scientists" or "reports" to provide some actual information on the mythical 20,000 year cut-off? Why gravitate to the most trivial and misleading information available, simply because it appears on the front page of Google?Sredmash (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sredmash: Thanks for the response. I think we have an obligation to include the information, but it is not productive for either of us to keep a back and forth going. I have understood your points. Bruxton (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; while the number of editors supporting and opposing the move was roughly equal consensus is not based on counting votes but on strength of argument. When considered in this light, those supporting the move had the strongest argument, based on the evidence they presented in the form of ngrams. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone → Chernobyl exclusion zone – Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, apply sentence case unless capped in a substantial majority of sources. This is not. See ngram Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It does appear to be descriptive rather than a formal name. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a formal name, as is common knowledge. Furthermore in Russian it is frequently abbreviated as 'ChZO' which cements its status as a proper noun. The situation is complicated by the fact that the word 'otchuzhdenie' is very seldom used outside of the context of this exclusion zone in particular. Sometimes it is translated as 'Alienation Zone' for that reason, so rendering it as a common noun fails to capture the usage and connotation of the name for more reasons than one. Sredmash (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would observe that, like English, initialisms are capitalisted in Russian etc but that does not ipso facto make the phrase being abbreviated a proper name|noun. Also, Russian capitalises proper names and when expanded but otchuzhdenie is not capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian is notoriously stingy with capitalization by comparison with English, frequently capitalizing the first letter when English would capitalize all of the words. But they still capitalize 'Zone' when colloquially shortening the name, as is also done in English. Really there is no basis in the Wikipedia policy I can see for this proposal. The Zone is a political region with borders. If you would capitalize Chernobyl Rayon (district), you would capitalize the Zone. Just like a political district, the Zone has its own governing body, specific laws and institutions. From both a formal perspective and a colloquial one, it warrants capitalization.Sredmash (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This searchThis of google books does not support the assertion that zone is consistently capped in Russian in the phrase "Зона адчужэння ЧарнобыльскайЗона отчуждения Чернобыльской". Yes, English is less formal in respect to capitalisation and one will often see phrases capitalised for emphasis or distinction (similar to italics) but we don't do that here (per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS). Most European languages (with the notable exception of German) tend to reserve capitalisation for proper nouns|names. As you appear to be unaware of the prevailing WP:P&G (already linked), MOS:CAPS states: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. WP:NCCAPS (linked from WP:AT) gives specific voice to MOS:CAPS. That WP:OTHERTHINGS exist is only a valid argument if they represent WP best practice. Qualifiers such as state or district for geopolitical regions are not always capitalised on WP. See for example List of districts in India, since capitalisation is determind by MOS:CAPS and evidence of usage. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Amend Cinderella157 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend trying to dabble in languages you don't speak. Зона адчужэння Чарнобыльскай is not Russian. I already made an argument as to why 'exclusion' is nearly unique in its usage here. Why don't you convince everyone to decapitalize every Oblast in Ukraine, and then come back to this discussion.Sredmash (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ENGLISH, our concern here is how the subject is most commonly identified in English language sources. If it's capped in other languages like Russian or Belarusian, that's fine, but that would apply to the title as it appears in the corresponding non-English Wikipedias. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is not consistently capitalized in sources, we don't care here what is done in other languages, and capitalization of acronyms tells us nothing at all about capitalization of aconrym expansions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looks like a proper name to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Perhaps "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Zone of Alienation" is a proper name, but the current title is not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Its like a human name, do you say the last name with a lower case? No. The name change is pointless, as its like saying to rename the United States to “United states” because the S is capitalized.. SnowieLuna1212 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion was not concluded. There was no consensus and the article should not have been railroaded into a move. No one has engaged with my arguments in favor of the status quo. Definitive sources such as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, National Geographic, the New York Times, Nature journal and The Lancet journal all capitalize each noun. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/life-goes-on-chernobyl-35-years-after-worlds-worst-nuclear-accident https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470204513704170.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22842-5 I still haven't seen an actual argument as to why we should capital the trailing nouns in Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and Kyiv Oblast, but not for the Zone.20:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredmash (talk • contribs)

@Sredmash: If you believe it was closed incorrectly then WP:MRV exists. There's a fairly solid argument of No Consensus, and per WP:TITLECHANGES, reverting to its default capitalized title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a subject matter expert regarding this article, but an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. I don't know how to initiate these kinds of deliberations and would likely break something by just reverting. Is there anyone who can assist with procedure?Sredmash (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sredmash: The instructions are in the green box at WP:IMR. They are not super complex, as it just involves copying and filling in a template. Step 1 was already done, as you clearly informed the closer of your wish for them to revert the close as a WP:BADNAC #2 and they disagreed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this also cover the Belarusian half?

[edit]

This article seems to, at several points, dance between whether it's talking about the whole exclusion zone or just the specific administrative Ukrainian half. Is this about the legal entity today or the initial Soviet concept?

I think this could also solve the titling issue to fix this. This article should be about the Exclusion Zone, in whole, period. The old 30km circle zone from the Soviet era, then the post 1991 Ukrainian Chernobyl Zone of Alienation and Belarusian Polesie State Radioecological Reserve. Those two combined make up the modern day entity commonly referred to as the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. We can have seperate articles for the specific administrative entities that exist today, but this article should just be about the exclusion zone in whole. The two pieces that make it up today, and the old circle, the exclusion zone as a concept. Not the legal entities. This article can't make up it's mind, and the Belarusian one is a tiny poorly written mess. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:6481:2C48:89B3:BEF8 (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(So basically make this article about the broader exclusion zone as a concept. This includes both the Zone of Alienation Ukrainian Legal Entity and the Radiological Reserve Belarusian Legal Entity, as well as the original CCCP/USSR era 30 KM Circle zone and other closed off sectors in Belarus near the Gomel hotspot. We can have seperate far shorter articles about the legal and administrative entities, Belarus's article is basically already that and we'd make a new one for the Zone of Alienation specifically. Like I said this article is trying to be both and ends up not doing either well) 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:DE3:350B:8641:9F26 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chernobyl_exclusion_zone&oldid=1258222159"