| Revision as of 00:15, 20 April 2010 editFellGleaming (talk | contribs)3,690 edits →Fallout Comparison← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:09, 7 December 2024 edit undoPasky (talk | contribs)241 edits re-add good article section, still active initiative for me (though slow moving) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no}} |
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Bridge of Death (Prypiat)|Bridge of Death (Prypiat)|27 March 2009}} |
|
|
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=GAR |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=7 May 2006 |
|
|
|
|action1date=06:58, 8 March 2006 |
|
|action1result=delisted |
|
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1oldid=52030476 |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=42758715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
|action2=GAR |
|
|action2date=20:14, 3 January 2009 |
|
|action2date=18:16, 7 May 2006 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chernobyl disaster/archive1 |
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive 1#Chernobyl disaster |
|
|action2result=not promoted |
|
|action2result=delisted |
|
|action2oldid=261497417 |
|
|action2oldid=52030476 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
|
|action3date=20:14, 3 January 2009 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Chernobyl disaster/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=not promoted |
|
|
|action3oldid=261497417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|
|action4date=19:30, 14 February 2013 |
|
|
|action4link=/GA1 |
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=490474695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otddate=2004-04-26|otdoldid=6718160|otd2date=2005-04-26|otd2oldid=16335166|otd3date=2006-04-26|otd3oldid=50167422|otd4date=2007-04-26|otd4oldid=125992996|otd5date=2009-04-26|otd5oldid=286265874|otd6date=2012-04-26|otd6oldid=489386509|otd7date=2013-04-26|otd7oldid=552094760|otd8date=2016-04-26|otd8oldid=717185058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=World History |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Bridge of Death (Prypiat)|Bridge of Death (Prypiat)|27 March 2009}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=B|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Belarus|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=High|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Belarus|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Europe}} |
|
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=mid}} |
|
{{Disaster management|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Energy|class=|importance=|nested=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Science Policy|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=high|hist=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=top}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied |from = Chernobyl after the disaster |from_oldid = 490474695 |to = Chernobyl disaster |diff = http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chernobyl_disaster&diff=490488239&oldid=490487211 |date = 03 May 2012 }} |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
{{All time pageviews|81}} |
|
{{Cleanup taskforce notice|CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT}} |
|
|
|
{{Top 25 report|Sep 7 2014|Apr 24 2016|May 19 2019|until|Jun 16 2019}} |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2004-04-26|oldid1=6718160 |date2=2005-04-26|oldid2=16335166 |date3=2006-04-26|oldid3=50167422 |date4=2007-04-26|oldid4=125992996 |date5=2009-04-26|oldid5=286265874 }} |
|
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
<br clear=all> |
|
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
{{Archive box |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 | |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
---- |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#] |
|
|
# |
|
|
}}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Grammar== |
|
== Cancer rates low after 19 years, high after 24? == |
|
|
|
The fist sentence should read: "At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, located in the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)" instead of: "at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, then located in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)". It did not physically move. |
|
|
|
|
As part of an unrelated search, I just noticed a really striking difference between whichever UN source is cited in and and from last year, which seems to confirm the recent news. |
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the IAEA have any idea what the expected cancer occurrence profile is for various sorts of contamination? I'd like to see one for ] exposure, because of ] -- Apparently all those people spending money we pay them to pay attention haven't been paying attention. ] (]) 05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There is a vast difference between DU as refined for inertial weapon use vs uranium within an active nuclear reactor for any period of time (not to speak of the graphite and all the other materials around the reactor and later poured into it). The accumulated fission products and atoms of all types irradiated with neutrons into radioactive isotopes makes any comparison complete fantasy, as would any statistics about estimated cancer deaths arising from them. No ammo for a DU war here. ] (]) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Correction about Vehicle Field == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Many of the vehicles used by the "liquidators" remain parked in a field in the Chernobyl area to this day, most giving off doses of 10-30 R/hr (0.1-0.3 Gy/hr) over 20 years after the disaster." |
|
|
|
|
|
I visited Chernobyl in December 2009. The field of vehicles used in the clean-up no longer exists. According to the official guide, they have now been buried. I also read on someone's account of visiting Chernobyl in 2008 that the vehicles had been acquisitioned for their metal. Which seems highly unlikely considering the amount of radiation they must have. Either way, the vehicles aren't there any more. Around 5-6 vehicles used in the clean-up have been parked in a village near Chernobyl town, which the tours take you to (I can provide pictures of this). I don't know where you could find verifiable sources to confirm this - here is the site of the guy who was told the vehicles were taken for the metal: http://www.reactor4.be/our_story.php |
|
|
] (]) 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Huh? Why would the cars be radioactive? Cs-137 and I-131 decay via beta and gamma. There isn't going to be a high neutron flux in the area. ] (]) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Physical Health Effects -- missing figure == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the section on NTD in Turkey, there is a figure missing in the sentence ending "the prevalence of NTDs increased to per 1,000 (12 cases)." As the paragraph lacks a citation, I cannot say what the missing figure is, but deduction from the following sentence suggest it to be about 20. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)richard@the-place.net |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article prose... == |
|
|
|
|
|
...is not what it once was. I'm not sure exactly what has changed since the last time I had a look, but it's no longer as easily read or as readily understood as it used to be. Is this related to the work discussed above? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another note, actually: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Some of the modifications made to the text follow logically as responses to the text that was present before the changes were made but make less sense standing here alone. Readers can't be expected to have seen both versions of the text and that's just not the way an encyclopedia is supposed to work: whatever the technical reality is, there is only ''one'' Misplaced Pages article on the Chernobyl disaster. It needs to be complete as presented. I've copypasta'd an example below. |
|
|
|
|
|
::All of them returned to the surface and according to Ananenko, their colleagues jumped from happiness when they heard they managed to open the valves. Despite their good condition after the task completion, all of them suffered from radiation sickness, and at least two of them - Ananenko and Bezpalov - died in the process. |
|
|
|
|
|
:This seems almost a non sequitur as presented in the article. It feels out of place in context: there is no reason for the reader to assume they did not make it out, as the article says nothing of the kind. I personally happen to know--and a reader might discover from the article's history page--that this section once claimed that the three divers did not return to the surface and that all died immediately. This snippet seems to make sense as a rebuttal of the older version of the article, but that serves no purpose: there is no reason to rebut a version that is not present, and that the reader has not read. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I can't imagine this being a common practice and would like to see some of these bits and pieces made to fit better within the context of the article but don't necessarily know enough about the event itself to ensure that I can make changes without screwing up details. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] (]) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Russian acronyms == |
|
|
|
|
|
Created a ] for translation from Russian-language webpages. |
|
|
--] (]) 23:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extremely long article (unwieldy) == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's an important topic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a book. Can this article be heavily chopped down for readability? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== What time? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article, I noticed that the infobox said the explosion was at 1:21am, but the third paragraph said the time was 1:23am. I tagged them both as ]. Could someone please fix those times so they are correct and consistent? Thanks, ] (]). Tagged: 23:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe the time zone is incorrect. It is listed only as +3. It is true that Ukraine was in the Moscow Time Zone when the accident occurred. However DST was observed in the Soviet Union at this time beginning in late March. Moscow Summer Time +4 would have been in effect. Ukraine currently observes Eastern European Time, +2 in the winter and +3 in the summer. ] (]) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misuse of "invisible Note" system == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have remove this text from the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
"First: No fact of "turning off the turbogenerators" were registered, this "turning off" was pre-overridden by operators (they lowered the threshold of triggering). Second: EPS-5 (AZ-5?) is the system, which scrams a reactor. Indeed, the system, whose signals were overridden, is the AZ-2 (or, in English, EPS-2). This system, as a part, cuts-off the steam to turbogenerators in cause of abnormal steam-water levels in separator drums. Third: One of two turbogenerators, by the 23:00 was already turned-off, thus, no need to speak in plural. Fourth: The source you specified below contains no assertions about "turning off turbogenerators", nor about triggering EPS-5 at this time-points." |
|
|
|
|
|
It was placed in the article as an "invisible note" but I think that although invisible notes have their uses this argument should have been brought here to the talk page. I also think that the English is below the standard required for articles. ] (]) 14:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree: my recent edit ''restoring'' an invisible note was of parenthetical material and not a commentary on the facts. --] (]) 14:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Fallout Comparison == |
|
|
|
|
|
''"400 times the fallout"''. This claim has been tagged as dubious for a while without anyone supporting it. This claim has several problems. First, it is demagogic and overly dramatic in tone. Secondly, the work of SCOPE (see ) suggests such comparisons are impossible; they are inherently "apples to oranges" comparisons. Third, it leaves a false impression in the reader's mind. Hiroshima may have killed as many as 100,000 people from fallout. Yet a release some four hundred times larger has killed possibly as few as 20, and certainly no more than 4,000? Even the source in this case points out that "Early estimates that tens or hundreds of thousands of people would die from Chernobyl have been discredited." |
|
|
|
|
|
Properly caveated, it might possibly have some relevance elsewhere in the article, but it has no place in the lede. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chernobyl Nuclear Accident == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|previous move request -- now closed}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{movereq|Chernobyl nuclear accident}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] → ] — Formal request per discussion below. ] (]) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''NOTE:''' Based on the multitude of names being proposed, I'm going to wait another day or two, then reopen the move request with whichever name has the most traction at that point, to avoid any potential procedural issues ] (]) 16:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, shouldn't this article be called the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident as opposed to the Chernobyl Disaster? Disaster can apply to anything, Nuclear Accident is more specific. |
|
|
] (]) 09:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Probably so; it would be more accurate. ] (]) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Do we have consensus on this before I move it? ] (]) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The ] talks about various kinds of "accidents". However, Chernobyl was really something special, and should be distinguished in some way. How about we go with the INES wording and call it ].? ] (]) 18:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: That seems logical. I did a Google search and the "accident" form turned up twice as often as the "disaster" form ... and the sources appeared to be much higher quality on the former as well. ] (]) 18:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I disagree with this move. It might be better to wait a little longer and see what others think before moving it. I'll put it back meantime. --] (]) 18:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: John, the issue has been open '''ten''' days. You say nothing during that period, then revert the move 5 minutes after its done? We have 3 editors here believing it should be moved. Please do not go against ] ] (]) 18:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::That's right. Can you take this to ] please, or else list it on project talk to generate a greater discussion? Three editors is not a very strong consensus, considering how long the article has been at this title. Thanks. --] (]) 19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Sure, there's no problem with giving the issue more time to gel. ] (]) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Rename per ]. ] (]) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section titled "Social Economic Effects" should be renamed to "socioeconomic effects" to reflect proper terminology. |
|
* '''Rename:''' Reasons: The "accident" form is more common, more neutral and encyclopedic in tone, and seems to be the form preferred by higher quality ]. Further, article sources show the original effects of the accident were not nearly as bad as originally feared, and we should capture that in our terminology. ] (]) 19:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:minor but this is the English language page "Numerous structural and construction quality issues, as well as deviations from the original plant design, had been known to KGB since at least 1973 and passed on to the Central Committee, which take no action and classified the information." should be "been known to the KGB... which took no action" |
|
* '''Oppose''' per ]; we aren't here to invent English usage, especially when no ''useful'' precision is gained; English speakers know precisely which disaster is referred to when they hear "Chernobyl disaster", there is no ambiguity. ] (]) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Invent? There are twice as many Google hits for "Chernobyl Accident" as "Chernobyl Disaster". I think both terms are ''precise'', but one is more neutral than the other. |
|
|
::"Chernobyl Accident" (with or without the incorrect capitalisation) is not the proposed destination of this page. ] (]) 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Containing fire == |
|
* '''Rename''' per my reasons above. I think the picture says it all. ] (]) 19:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The timeline says all fires were contained at 6:35 - this should probably mention "fires around the power plant": The core continued to burn days after, but there is no description what measures really lead to containing the fire inside the reactor. It just says "It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core." It is not clear what really stopped the fire. |
|
*'''Move to 'accident' '''. Three times as many search terms show 'accident' vs. 'disaster', and those results lead to many of the highest quality reliable sources. ''Disaster'' is emotion-laden, ''accident'' is neutral. ] (]) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] was the "fire" and it "stopped" being "red hot" like decay heat always does. With time. |
|
*'''Strongly oppose''' ''move to ]'', '''support''' ''move to ]''. The latter is accurate and reasonably free from heavy-handed emotional implications; the former sounds ridiculously clinical and sterile, reeking of an odd mixture of non-native English, legalese, and some sort of future dystopian ]. It's fine for the INES's purposes, perhaps, but unfit for ours. There aren't any "minor" nuclear accidents in Chernobyl to necessitate this added level of distinction (some might argue that there's no such thing as a "minor" nuclear accident, period, but that's neither here nor there). Additionally, there's no real precedent for copying an investigative bureau's exact terminology, especially when it's as awkwardly phrased as this. As a comparision, I offer the ]: it's not ] as per the NTSB's English translation of the Spanish report. ] (]) 20:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Lol, great example. ] (]) 20:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::So, we're looking like ]? ] (]) 20:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with Badger Drink's logic. As the originator of the thread noted, there are many kinds of disasters, including natural ones. "Accident" means it was human-caused, with the implication of error. "Major" is just an empty adjective. "Chernobyl Accident" or Chernobyl Nuclear Accident" will help readers find the article.--] (]) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar edit request == |
|
*'''Oppose''' My Google search for gives 133,000 hits, whereas gives 49,700. gives one - our own ] page! It seems that it already has the most commonly used name. --] (]) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a rather extended high-comma-count "sentence" with what looks to be a misspelling. |
|
:"Chernobyl Accident" without "Nuclear" gets 422,000 hits on Google if quote signs are included and 499,000 if not.--] (]) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, were the unabated ingestion of local food, primarily milk consumption, resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body, after the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine, recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise, in internal committed dose, before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year. |
|
:I guess between "Chernobyl disaster" and "Chernobyl accident" I prefer "Chernobyl disaster". I think we need to emphasize the severity in some way. ] (]) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
::That's a fourth optional name. The requested move was to "Chernobyl major nuclear accident". --] (]) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
minimal-change improvement: |
|
:::Although an accident, it was indeed a disaster. I '''oppose''' renaming. ] (]) 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I don't think it's up to WP to decide whether or not it was a disaster. It's up to the reader. As the article explains, it's not clear just how disastrous the accident was.--] (]) 22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>The expected highest body activity was in the first few years, where the unabated ingestion of local food (primarily milk) resulted in the transfer of activity from soil to body. After the dissolution of the USSR, the now reduced scale initiative to monitor the human body activity in these regions of Ukraine recorded a small and gradual half-decadal-long rise in internal committed dose before returning to the previous trend of observing ever lower body counts each year. |
|
'''update:''' based on still-developing consensus, I've changed the move discussion to '''"Chernobyl nuclear accident"'''. If this affects your vote, please note as much here. ] (]) 22:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== length of lead == |
|
:* Changing tracks halfway through only leads to confusion; stop the discussion and restart it, or let this run its course and propose a second if necessary afterwards (there's no rush after all). On the new proposed title however, what ''non-nuclear'' accidents of international renown have there been in this small Ukrainian town? There's no need for the extra precision. ] (]) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has come up before, see.. |
|
:::I understand your point, but a nuclear accident is no ordinary industrial accident. The ] is the only event of the same order of magnitude that I know. I wouldn't feel right just calling this event simply the "Chernobyl accident". ] (]) 02:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is the ]. ] (]) 02:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Bhopal killed several '''thousand''' people within the first couple weeks...nearly all civilians. Chernobyl killed 39 within the first couple weeks...all of which were plant workers or emergency responders. ] (]) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Most of whom (not "which" btw) were also civilians. What difference does that make to this discussion? --] (]) 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: The difference is two fold. One is simple scale -- several thousand vs. three dozen. The second is that non-connected civilians are generally regarded as a greater tragedy than those intentionally risking their lives. For instance, 3,000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks is considered worse than 3,000 soldiers killed in a war. ] (]) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I don't agree, and I don't agree with the proposed page move either. <small>(Not that I want to get into a protracted debate about this, you understand, but many of the dead on 9/11 were firefighters just like the guys at Chernobyl. So what?) </small> --] (]) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chernobyl_disaster/Archive_13#Lead_too_long |
|
*'''Oppose''' either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl disaster" would be more common, or just "Chernobyl" . "Chernobyl meltdown" is also pretty common. ] ] (]) 06:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
::I pretty strongly disagree with "Chernobyl accident", and am guardedly neutral with "Chernobyl disaster". "Nuclear" is a good word to use to distinguish this particular incident from thousands of unplanned mishaps of varying degrees of severity that have no doubt affected the geographical locale in question over the course of mankind. If we're truly going to go with ], I think the most common designator of this would be simply "Chernobyl" (c.f. "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11" / "September 11th"; rather than "Pearl Harbor bombing" or "September 11th terrorist hijackings"), but, ], that alone won't do. I'm fine with "Chernobyl nuclear disaster", but can sympathize with those who feel it's a bit too pejorative and emotionally-laden. "Chernobyl nuclear accident" is pretty good as well, maybe a bit "apologetic" ("aw, come on, guys, it was just an ''accident'', nobody's really to blame"), but does a good job of summarizing what transpired. Without the "nuclear", and without "disaster" to signify the magnitude of the incident in question, it's just a bit too vague to sit well with me. Google searches aren't perfect; speaking hypothetically, twenty news / scientific journal headlines / titles that read "Chernobyl nuclear accident" carry a lot more weight with me than five thousand mentions of the "Chernobyl accident" bured in the middle paragraphs of a tangentially-related writing. ] (]) 07:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Grammar == |
|
*I also '''oppose''' a move to either "Chernobyl accident" or "Chernobyl nuclear disaster". There seems no need to make such a move; there has only been one major disaster there and it made worldwide news. The word "accident" has connotations of a vehicular accident. -] (]) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (However, if the article was just being created I would be 50/50 split between "Chernobyl catastrophe" and "Chernobyl disaster", for what is worth. -] (]) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)) |
|
|
*:Agreed. Accident is far too mild. It certainly was a disaster (or catastrophe) for Chernobyl. --] (]) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. ] (]) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Requested move == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 == |
|
{{movereq|Chernobyl accident}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Chernobyl disaster|answered=yes}} |
|
Due to the name change, I am closing the old incident and reopening this as a discussion on the move to "Chernobyl accident". If you expressed a view for either this name, or to leave simply as "Chernobyl disaster", you do not need to reexpress your position. If you expressed a view for one of the alternate names discussed above, please restate your vote here for clarity. Thanks. ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. ] (]) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. ] (]) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Getting this to a Good Article state == |
|
'''Support:''' I strongly support, as per ]. This google search shows many more hits for the "accident" form than disaster, and these hits appear to be from more reliable sources in general. Further, the name is more ], and makes no unbiased assumptions about how serious the accident really was (and the article makes clear there is dispute in this regard). ]<sup>(])</sup> 18:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles. |
|
*Presuming you mean "Chernobyl accident" as we don't capitalize non-proper nouns in article titles. '''Strongly oppose''' move per ]. I suggest this will soon become disruptive. --] (]) 17:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done! |
|
*'''Neutral''' I really don't see a good reason to move it, though "accident" seems a bit more common, but much less than "Chernobyl". ] (]) 05:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Update the Background with key information about RBMK and the ChNPP. |
|
* MOVE. It wasn't the disaster some tried to say it was. ] (]) 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Update the Impact section with information about impact on Soviet Union (some of it may be moved from the Socio-economic impact section?) |
|
* '''Oppose move'''. The name "Chernobyl disaster" has served us well for a long time, and this really was no ordinary accident. ] (]) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Reconcile the Long-term effects section with the ] article. There is significant overlap but also differences, and I believe the section would benefit from trimming down details. |
|
* '''Strong oppose''' This would be far too mild a name. The existing ] is more specific and accurate. All the relevant points were made in the previous discussion, now closed. A few editors tried to close the last RfM far too soon, and now we have another almost immediately. Any more of this will certainly look disruptive.--] (]) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
** Pet peeve: The table in Release and spread of radioactive materials; moreover it omits many countries, the primary source of the secondary source cited has more lines, but I think a map would be better. The popular one seems copyrighted and I'm not sure if it'd fall under a non-free use exception, I tried to ask the EC for permission... but actually we'd have to get permission also from Ukrainian and Russian governments, seems possible but a tall order. |
|
: Nigel, as agreed to in talk, the last one was closed as multiple names were being discussed simultaneously. The process was thus restarted. ]<sup>(])</sup> 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Revisit each remaining section with further-information or main-article link and make sure that each such section only provides key summary in the main article and details are moved to the specialized article. |
|
::Well, this is the talk page, and I've looked twice now for that discussion, but I still don't see it. --] (]) 17:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: It's collapsed, right above this one. Click the expand link. |
|
The fist sentence should read: "At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, located in the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)" instead of: "at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the city of Pripyat, then located in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union (USSR)". It did not physically move.
The section titled "Social Economic Effects" should be renamed to "socioeconomic effects" to reflect proper terminology.
The timeline says all fires were contained at 6:35 - this should probably mention "fires around the power plant": The core continued to burn days after, but there is no description what measures really lead to containing the fire inside the reactor. It just says "It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core." It is not clear what really stopped the fire.
There's a rather extended high-comma-count "sentence" with what looks to be a misspelling.
The first sentence of the sub-section "Fuel-containing materials" has a grammatical error. The first sentence reads "About 95% of the fuel in reactor No. 4 at the time of the accident." This is obviously not a complete sentence. It is unclear to me what the original literary intent of this clause was. This half-sentence could be removed without impeding the reader's understanding of the following text. CALPHone (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Under the "In popular culture" section, it says THQ produced STALKER, this is not true GSC Gameworld, a Ukrainian video games developer, produced it. Wikipedianikolas (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
After few years, I have come back to the article and made a variety of significant edits, mainly simplifying the overall layout. My goal would be to get this article to a state where it can be nominated to a Good Article and a Featured Article - seems worthwhile given the importance of the event as well as this article being in the Top 100 visited articles.
I'm not sure how much time I can invest into this of course, but seeing a variety of activity from others recently inspired me and I thought I'd start a collaborative checklist below. Feel free to edit it further, or cross out things that are done!
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Done The article doesn't say THQ produced the game, it says it released it, which according to the game's article would appear to be true. With that said, I'm of the opinion that a video game's developer is usually far more responsible for it than its publisher, so I added a few words that include GSC's role. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)