Talk:Chernobyl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disaster management  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Elena Filatova[edit]

The link on the bottom of the page is to www.kiddofspeed.com - there is some doubt as to the veracity of the page in question, and this is indicated on other pages on here which link to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.1.79.16 (talkcontribs) 21:10, 26 November 2004.

I've removed an external link to the KiddOfSpeed site for the reason stated above: there are some questions about the factual accuracy of the website. --Muchness 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? The photos are real, and worth looking at. The story behind her visit is what's made up, and as long as that's mentioned.... Angryscientist 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. Halmyre 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's external links guidelines recommend against linking to a site that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". --Muchness 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I was recently in Chernobyl and found her story (as many have criticized) to be a bit stretched in the realms of truth. My pictures are online if anyone wants to see them, don't know if this article needs any but if it does they are available. My Pictures. --JaymzRR (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the move of the accident information to a new page:[edit]

Q: Why are you moving the accident information to a new page called 'Chernobyl accident'?
A: Because this article really deals with the event we know as 'Chernobyl accident' and not much about the city of Chernobyl (or Chornobyl). The accident actually ocurred just outside the town of Pryp'yat, 10 miles (16 km) northwest of the city of Chernobyl.

Q: Why are you using 'Chernobyl accident' instead of 'Chornobyl accident'?
A: The nuclear reactor was called Chernobyl, using the Russian spelling. Remember this accident happened when Ukraine was still a part of the Soviet Union, so they used the Russian spelling. And because it happened during that era, when it was known as Chernobyl, it should be called the 'Chernobyl accident. Another A: If you read the article that many smart wikipedia employees have used, you will find that yes, Chernobyl incident was a disaster. But it was a pure accident. :) --Cantus


Since chernobyl means wormwood, and wormwood is mentioned as the name of the star which kills a lot of life on earht, whould this biblical reference be mentioned?

See http://www.newage.com.au/ufo/vatican.html for some hint of what i mean.

No, the naming is probably just coincidence and not of intrest. Coincidence connections might be cool in the ordinary media but has no place in a encyclopedia imoho. Besides, the chernobyl accident did not kill "a lot of life" on earth. Just a very small part of it and not a lot compared to other accidents such as mining or ferry accidents in modern times. Also this article is for the city of chernobyl afaik and not the accident in the first place ;)

Does chernobyl really means wormwood? I don't know Russian enough, but Cherno-byl resembles me, especially in Polish translation of the name "czarno-byl" "Black plant". Any Russian or Ukrainian or someone with knowledge of Russian here to comment? My friend has wife from former Soviet union, i will ask her ASAP szopen

Actually it means Mugwort, but they are both Artemisia. Mugworth is Artemisia vulgaris L and wormwood is Artemisia absinthium. // Liftarn

, but may very well be a combination of cherneej (black) and beel (a species of grass) so Chernoby may mean "black grass", hinting the burning of land before cultivation. Actually, byl (not beel) Ukrainian и matches Russian ы sound, hence the transliteration is like in Kyiv). 'Byl' here is a collective noun for 'bylina', which is grass blade or stalk, and the term is literally "black stalks". This grass is absolutely everywhere in Ukrainian steppes and has certain poetic associations in folklore, and no wonder the city was named so. Mikkalai 18:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"black stalks". Ok, perhaps it should go into the article. // Liftarn

I've modified the story to describe the Cherbonyl/Wormwood link as controversial rather than wrong. I've also included another reference to that usage by a native speaker. darkonc Nov. 4, 2004


According to Dahl's Dictionary of the Great Live Russian Language, which is a basis of the modern Russian language, Chernobyl is a kind of Polyn, Artemisia vulgaris. In Russian the word 'Polyn' is always associated with the word 'bitter', as in the common expression 'bitter as Polyn'. I tend to believe that there is a link between the name of the star and the name of the town Chernobyl User: VladimirN.


This article needs to be organized better, and it requires an NPOV treatment of the strongly varying estimates of deaths that can be attributed to the accident so far:

  • 70,000 - by the German "Otto Hug Institit für Strahlenfolgen" (according to this German site by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
  • 125,000 - by the minister of health for the Ukraine (according to this source, which isn't a very good one)
  • 7,000-8,000 (1991) - Wladimir Tschernousenko (German spelling), deceased (allegedly as a consequence of the radiation), one of the three chief "liquidators" of the reactor
  • 6,000 - historian David R. Marples (publishing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)
  • 28 immediate deaths and 1,800 cases of "mostly curable" (by whom?) Thyroid cancer - by the UNSCEAR program. (Note: The board of UNSCEAR scientists is appointed by nuclear-power-using governments.)

One common argument used for low death estimates is that cancer clusters cannot be "directly linked" to the accident. Proponents of high death estimates accuse the other side of covering up the disaster in the interest of the nuclear energy/weapons complex, proponents of low death estimates have put forward the argument that original estimates from the Ukraine were exaggerated in order to get more aid (this is contradictory to the fact that the official number of deaths as published by the USSR has remained 31 until its downfall). -- user:Eloquence


Accident vs. disaster[edit]

This is a typical case of disinformation. Compare with an earth quake. Nobody will call an earth quake which would kill thousands and displace hundreds of thousands people an accident.

Again, when a Space Shuttle explodes, although it kills only seven people, it is a disaster (I think it is). But Chernobyl is just an accident... Yann

Read the article on NPOV for why it is not desirable for Wikipedia to describe events in subjective terms like disastrous, terrible, wonderful, etc. Also note that an accient by definition is caused inadvertently by human activity (including the failure of machines built by humans.) Mkweise 00:17 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

What about calling it an incident, i.e. the Chernobyl Incident, or is that too vague. I understand what you are saying about not calling it a Disaster, but has anyone called 9/11 an accident, surely it is a disaster? Or is it an Incident? An "Accident" is also against NPOV because if you think about it, it is suggesting that it was indeed an accident. There are many theories as to what happened (I personally think it was an "accident" but it was also a disaster) so we should not call it an accident. So maybe re-naming it to "Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster" (baring in mind that UP TO 100,000 perople died or will die because of it. I think that Disaster is the right term, it is undisputable, please give me a reason why it should NOT be called a disaster. (Or why it should be called an "accident.") In England, my local police force have stopped calling RTA (Road Traffic Accident) a road traffic accident, but calling them an RTI (Road Traffic Incident) other places in England call them RTC's (Road Traffic Collision) but to have a road traffic collision requires a collission with something, but to say it was an accident, then I disagree, just as I disagree with calling the Chernobyl Disaster (Incident) an "Accident." I think what I have said makes sense but may also come across as rather politically correct, but surely we on Wikipedia want to encourage giving the facts and the facts are that it occured under the secrative Soviets and therefore we don't actually know the true story for sure. We know that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people died so surely it should be called an Incident (which sounds mundane, but is accurate) or a disaster (which is not NPOV) but PLEASE PLEASE not "Accident." The Teneriffe Air Disaster was not called the Teneriffe Air Accident. Ian Morgan, 1836GMT 18/04/2006


Chernobyl -> Chornobyl[edit]

Regarding the move, see [1]. Mkweise 19:15, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that "Chornobyl" is correct for the town but "Chernobyl" is correct for the power plant? - Efghij 19:18, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From the page I referenced above:
In addition, the U.S. Department of State, at the request of the Ukraine government, advised our offices in August 1997 to change to the preferred spelling of the country in which the city or nuclear power plant is located. At that point, we changed our web-site spelling to Ukraine's preference, which is Chornobyl.
Mkweise 19:31, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well then it should be changed throughout the text. - Efghij 19:37, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it should: the country uses the Ukrainian language now, and (as I understand it) the transliteration Chornobyl comes from that. The origin of Chernobyl is from Russian which was the official language before independence. – Kieran T (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page[edit]

I've decided to make this a disambiguation page, because this name can refer to Chornobyl or the CIH Virus, both of which are infamous. NOTE: On second thought, I changed it back. X_X. I did mention the virus in the Chornobyl article tho - Whisper

  • I couldn't find a mention of the CIH virus, so I'm going to add a note at the top of the article. Unless I missed something? Phoenix-forgotten 00:12, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)



I removed this comment from the article, this page is a more appropriate place:

To do: Coolant flow increased: not sure why, operator or physics?

-At18 13:25, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Maybe Chernobyl should be a disambig page w/ references for Chornobyl and Chernobyl accident rather than a straight redirect to the town. --zandperl 22:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No reason. No one says "chernobyl happened". Mikkalai 23:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If I want to find information about it the powerplant, I look up "Chernobyl" or "Chernobyl disaster," and not "Chernobyl accident," and I'd get confused if "Chernobyl" instead sent me to a page that was about a town, and wasn't even spelled the way I put it in. --zandperl 01:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is no information about Chernobyl powerplant yet. Chernobyl in this respect is just as good as Chernobyl accident. A better thing is to ad still another redirect from Chernobyl disaster (done it), since this term is used much more than accident. I suggest you to re-read the conventions about redirects, in particular, an advice not to overuse them. Mikkalai 02:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I just read the Wikipedia:Redirect page, and what caught my eye was the section titled "What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?" and the reference to the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. That's what was motivating me to suggest the above. I will make the change suggested in the Wikipedia:Redirect page, so that the Chernobyl accident info is read sooner. --zandperl 04:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the wrong advice. I wanted to tell you to read about disambiguation pages, not about redirects. "Chernobyl" is the name of the city. Nothing else is called "Chernobyl" proper. Hence there is nothing to disambiguate. Mikkalai 07:43, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If there were a book or a movie named "Chernobyl", then *they* should be disambiguated with Chernobyl city, but not the reactor of catastrophe. Mikkalai 07:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the content in the latest version is from the webpage [2] listed in the Chernobyl accident external links section. Is that info really about Chornobyl, or is it about Pripyat? Is it copyright infringement? --zandperl 04:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No way to check: site is shut down till May. As for info, both cities were evacuated. Mikkalai 08:39, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The content in question has been removed from the Chornobyl page, however next time do a Google search on it, b/c they always cache old versions of the page. Searching on the title, "PRIPYAT ghost town (1970-1986)" yields cached version [3], the second page is cached at [4], and so on. --zandperl 15:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The link to the external page I added is also a mirror of that site. Kim Bruning 19:20, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please comment the commenting out of the phrase:

  • The latter (mis)translation have led to some bizarre theories of the authors of Left Behind

Mikkalai 03:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Russian equivalents[edit]

Mikkalai: the job of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to indulge in nationalist bias. The translation of Chornobyl/Chernobyl in relation to "wormwood" is a common area of enquiry, and the comparison of Ukrainian and Russian versions is useful in answering that question. The Chernobyl name origin section seemed the most sensible place to put the information to avoid duplication.

IMO the article gave an exact answer without reference to Russian language. Please explain what is useful in the addition of the Russian language , besides Russophile bias :-) . The way as it was put, there was no apparent reason seen why Russian is important here and not Belarussian or some local dialects. Mikkalai 16:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OK. I got it, after reading new additions to Chernobyl accident. Instead of whinning and name calling you could have explained why Russian is relevant, and add more details without sneaking around, inserting somewhere else, and complaining about these bastard editors who hate all Russian.
You are right; the best place for Russian detail about the name is here, and I am moving the extended explanation here. Mikkalai 16:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Moving this page[edit]

According to the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll, this page should be at Chernobyl (as I explained on mkweise's talk page). I moved this page, and Cantus has moved it back. Cantus - either reply with your explination, or I am moving it back. →Raul654 22:55, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Chernobyl vs Chornobyl[edit]

Chernobyl is simply a spelling error. Even if this name is used in English magazines it is still a spelling error. The same aplies to Gorbachov vs. Gorbachev (spelling error). I think this because of the Russian 'io' sound which is usually spelled 'ie' in Russian itself. Outside people very often transliterate it 'e' where it should be 'o'. ABE 00:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Should be moved to Chernobyl

This has been discussed above, and the article states the official Ukrainian name. But as it relates to English, people call it Chernobyl, and probably will for a long time because of the accident. The Russian letter which looks like "ë" is transliterated "e" here not "o", even if it is pronounced "yo".--Henrygb 01:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Unlike Gorbachev, there is no Russian letter or sound "ë" in this word. Mikkalai 23:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I recently worked in Ukraine on the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and I noticed that Russians and Ukrainians who live in Ukraine care less about the spelling of the town Chernobyl, than Russians and Ukrainians who live in the West. I noticed that both spellings, Chernobyl and Chornobyl, are commonly used in the literature. It appears that some people believe that Chornobyl is an English translation for the Ukrainian name of the town, while Chernobyl is a Russian translation. Arguing about the correctness of these spellings, is prety much like arguing about correctness of the name "Vodka Bolshoi". Neither spelling nor meaning of this name make much sence, and yet, it's in use [[User: VladimirN[].


Distance between Chernobyl and the power plant.[edit]



Which one is correct? There are many words in both


I noticed that two different distances from the city to the power plaint is used in the article: 20 km and 10 km, at the beginning and the end of the article respectively. Which is correct?


Anonymous Bloke answers: Using Google Earth and maps.google.com, I make it approximately 14km as the crow flies. The exact figure will depend on precisely where you define the two end points.

Apocalyptic associations[edit]

the "Name origin" discusses confusion with translation of the city name as plant name, leading to... er... apocalypsis. But what about the translation of the word into "wormwood" in the "Revelation 8:10-11" itself? Who read the original? Mikkalai 22:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mikkalai, The Greek original refers to the star by the name «Άψινθος». The word comes from «Αψύς» (= bitter, strong, angry, unpleasant) and «Ανθός» (= flower, blossom) and it is the general descriptive name for the kind of plants of the genus Asteraceae (lit. 'Stars') also known as "Artemisia" in honour of Goddess Artemis, from where the latin names have prevailed. Hence you have «Αψίνθιο το κοινό» (a neuter variant of the masculine word), also called «Αρτεμισία η κοινή» (lit. Absinthium / Artemisium the common = Artemisium Vulgaris). You also have «Αψινθιά», a feminine variant of the word, which nowadays usually refers to the "Artemisia Absinthium" variety. All these words still exist in the Cypriot dialect, which is much more faithful to ancient Greek than modern Greek is these days, and are indeed the actual names used for these plants.
So, on one hand, any botanological / geneological arguments regarding the exact meanings of the words «Άψινθος» and «Чернобыль» are either naive or intentionally excessively pedantic. I don't think John was a certified botanist. Or that he would bother with such semantics while describing the revelation to his student who was writing it down in Greek at the time.
Having said that, however, this distinction is irrelevant. The word «Άψινθος» is used in a few places in the Bible, and it is always used metaphorically to mean something abominable and destructive. There is no reason to assume that its context is any different at the specific Revelation passage mentioned. The etymological coincidences are interesting at most, but not of consequence, either theologically or historically, and the Orthodox Church at least, warns against such literal interpretations of the Bible, and especially the revelation, since it is a highly symbolic text, and it was (and still is) delivered by men, who tried to explain and describe what they witnessed in terms of their own understanding, and based on their then current cultural, scientific and linguistic limitations (the same point which many western christians have chosen to ignore for centuries now, and have lead to a completely unnecessary, in my view, conflict with their scientists) Tpapastylianou (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

mugwort/wormwood[edit]

Mugwort is a kind of artemisia. Wormwood is an imprecise term and is not synonym of artemisia. Many sources use "Common Wormwood" to refer to Artemisia absinthium. There are 160 types of artemisias, and there is no common agreements about the names, especially in cases when plants are not indigenous to English-speaking lands.

Wormwoods[edit]

Looks like one has to consult a real authority to get the true facts:

Wormwoods http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/w/wormwo37.html

The Wormwoods are members of the great family of Compositae and belong to the genus Artemisia, a group consisting of 180 species.

The whole family is remarkable for the extreme bitterness of all parts of the plant: 'as bitter as Wormwood' is a very Ancient proverb. (above written by anonymous editor)

  • Also, this webpage says: Bear in mind "A Modern Herbal" was written with the conventional wisdom of the early 1900's. This should be taken into account as some of the information may now be considered inaccurate. And there are thousands of other "authorities", not all of whom agree with each other. Mikkalai 20:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only "authorities" and other "kooks" like yourself whose personal opinion and agenda to purposely hide, dissassociate and discredit any reference to the biblical associations of the word wormwood. [ozdawn]

"The kook talk is over." Mikkalai

"I don't care about botany pages." Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Mugwort From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Mugwort or Common Wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris L.), is a species from the daisy family Asteraceae. It is also known as Felon Herb, St. John's Plant, and Wild Wormwood.

Artemisia (plant) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Artemisia is a large, diverse genus of plant with about 180 species belonging to the Sunflower family Asteraceae. Wormwoods? Species? Common names?

Chernobyl From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs cleanup. Please edit this article to conform to a higher standard of article quality.

Chernobyl[edit]

What is with all the contradictory evidence presented regarding the “meaning” of the word Chernobyl?

It seems that this is not an encylcopdeia of fact but rather someones personal opinion and agenda to purposely hide, dissassociate and discredit any reference to the biblical associations of the word wormwood.

It is an insult to believers to derive all sorts of crazy ideas from the Holy Book. Quite a bunch of kooks many times declared the exact dates of the End of the World based on the Bible. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is Mugwort not one of the “over 180 kinds of Aremisia” – note only says 160 on current page?

The page says "over 160", not "160". If you know 180, OK with me.Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is Mugwort not a type of wormwood ?

Mugwort is type of Artemisia. Some call it type of wormwood, others not.Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is the sky blue ? Seems this has turned into a debate as to which shade of blue the sky really is rather than the fact that it is a blue color.

Seems some people are just trying to use a bunch of botanical hair-splitting to conseal the fact that Mugwort is a wormwood plain and simple.

Some pople think it is not a fact. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So this page has turned into unsubstatiated misinformation over the “true” or exact translation of the word and it’s biblical condonations rather than just a frank presention of the facts. I’d say delete all the botanical double-talk and leave just the facts !

My point exactly. So, tell me the fact which plant was mentioned in the original text of Apocalypsis? Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Examples: “erroneously translated” yet

Yes, it is. Even if you are right, "Common Wormwood" is not the same as common "Wormood". Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

“the terminology is not generally accepted”

No it is not. Use google and you will see. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Polyn has no English equivalent,”

No it doesn't. And by the way, it is not my phrase. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether the whole world agrees on the meaning of life and the origins of universe and should not be presented as such on this page. Or whether Mugwort is known as “common” wormwood or not.

Please clarify what do you want to say here. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AGAIN IS MUGWORT A TYPE OF WORMWOOD OR NOT ?

Some say yes, some say no. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then why is it referenced so on both the Artemisia and Mugwort pages but not the Chernobyl page?

I don't care about botany pages. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NOTE THE REAL "KOOK" TALK HERE - DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE FACTS OF BOTANY ITSELF BUT RATHER TRYING TO DISPROVE ANY BIBLICAL ASSOCIATION TO WORMWOOD !!! [ozdawn]

(posted by anonymous user)

Please put newer posts at the bottom of the talk page. It is the rule. Also, please sign your text.

The whole wormwood apocalypsis theory is based on words, not on facts. If you want play words, play with the words of the original text, not of the English translation. I can give you quite a few surprises from the German translation. Mikkalai 23:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names for mugqort[edit]

(from several websites)

Botanical name: Artemisia vulgaris

Common names: Mugwort, Moxa, Traveler’s Herb, Artemis Herb, Felon Herb, Muggons, Old Man, Sailor’s Tobacco. Cingulum Sancti Johannis aka St. John’s plant (NOT St. Johnswort).

Synonyms---Felon Herb. St. John's Plant. Cingulum Sancti Johannis.

(OK. enough from me. Use google yourself) Mikkalai 23:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


KOOK TALK[edit]

WARNING – THIS PAGE IS THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MIKKALAI.

It is obviously apparent that this "kook" Mikkalai takes all this personally. Somehow he continuely monitors this page as within 24-hours of any change, he is right there changing it all around to suit his version of the world. I simply added the reference on the Mugwort page “know as Common Wormwood” to this Chernobyl page and Mikkalai was right there to erase it even though it had been months since the last posting.

You may want to notice that "common wormwood" is mentioned at this Chernobyl page. I suggest you not only write, but also to read. Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IT'S ONLY THERE TODAY BECAUSE THE PAGE IS NOW "PROTECTED" TO KEEP YOU FROM REMOVING IT! [ozdawn]

At no time did anyone say that they were out to "prove or disprove" the meaning of biblical translations but that is exactly what this Mikkalai is out to do. Somehow he knows for a “fact” that the biblical associations are all wrong and he is not going to face the reality that no one really knows and in his own words there is much dispute between all the different interpretations.

We can prove or disprove wrong/correct translations. Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So why can’t this page just present the simple facts and let the facts speak for themselves?

There are ways to present "simple facts" that you may start believing in Satan. Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fact is “some people do associate Mugwort with the Wormwood mentioned in the Bible” – SO WHAT? They certainly do have something to base their “belief” on – at least Mugwort is a type of Wormwood. It’s not like Mugwort is a member of the Oak family. Maybe it only means Artemisia vulgaris instead of Artemisia absinthium but at least a Polyn is still a Polyn and Artemisia is still Artemisia which is a pretty close reference for a something that is 2000 years old.

It is incorrect to say that "mugwort" is type of "wormowood". Both terms are not exact. In this way one may say that onion is a type of lily, but if you put lily in your pizza, you may poison yourself. Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Mikkalai, the very thought of this somehow drives him mad!

The fact is – NOONE REALLY KNOWS NOT EVEN YOU MIKKALAI even though he pretends to.

For more accurate information than this site will ever provide as long as Mikkalai controls it, please see:

http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Arte_vul.html#chornobyl

“Confused by the inherent ambiguity of that word [polyn], some Western journalist have tried to make a case that the herb mentioned in the Bible is indeed the same that is called chernobyl, which actually may be true (for a Russian or Ukrainian Bible translation), because polyn and chernobyl have indeed overlapping denotation.”

So drop the debate about the “overlapping” translations that in the end noone really knows for certain which actually meant what to the original writers of the Bible and people can argue back and forth all day about the different “translations” and their “meanings”.

AGAIN THE SIMPLE FACT IS MUGWORT IS A MEMBER OF THE "WORMWOOD" GROUP OF PLANTS AND THEREFORE THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE ASSOCIATE IT WITH THE BURNING STAR CALLED WORMWOOD.

there is no botanical term "wormwood family". there is "arthemisia family"Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO POINT OUT THAT "THERE ARE OTHER NAMES" FOR THE PLANT - THE FACT IS ONE OF THEM IS “COMMON WORMWOOD”.

It doesn't matter if there are 1000 different names - one of them will still be "Common Wormwood" no matter what you say or try to discredit this fact. And that is all that is needed for the Biblical "association" to be made for those who choose to make it. No one ever said it was "right or wrong" - "provable or disprovable" - just that the association exists. No one said that you or anyone else had to believe in this but stop demeaning those who choose to make the association no matter what you "feel" about it. [ozdawn]

Noone said that you or anyone has to believe in this or anything the Bible has to say so why this crusade to put down all those who do ? Mikkalai’s own efforts to “prove” the unprovable make him look like the biggest “kook” of all.

There is no "inherent ambiguity" between the original greek text and Ukrainian. Everyone who ever seen "apsinthos" (Aψινθος) (artemisia absinthium) and "chornobyl" (artemisia vulgaris) will never confuse the plants. They are no way "overlapping". Neither Greeks, nor Ukrainians may ever coinfuse them, since these are their native plants. there is nothing "unprovable". The only "overlapping" is in the brains of lazy paparazzi who think that the only language is English, the remaining are only translations from English. Also, please sign your texts. Mikkalai 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreeable version[edit]

Now that you and me have stated our positions, please look at the article and tell me if you agree with the current text. If not, please suggest your version. Mikkalai 21:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is insane. Devoting an entire section to botanical nitpicking in order to satisfy someone's theological agenda should be thoroughly unacceptable, and your conclusions are faulty at best.
Use of the Koine Greek apsinthos does not "clearly [say] that it was artemisia absinthium" any more than an old text referring to a camel as a dromedary "clearly says" that the animal in question was camelus dromedarius. Taxonomic binomials are derived from traditional usages, not the other way around.
The Koine Greek word simply means "undrinkable," and it stands to reason that when applying it to the plant first- and second-century Hellenists weren't sticklers for its Linnaean taxonomic classification. Neither is the modern encyclopedia reader, for that matter; thus wormwood redirects to artemisia (plant).
A botanist would simply say "artemisia" rather than chance being misunderstood by using a vague term. Everyone else understands "wormwood" to mean "a class of bitter plants," as I'm sure Schmemann and his readers did. ADH (t&m) 11:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You are the first person with a certain degree of expertise who said something reasonable on the subject. You showed clearly that the criticism in the article was misdirected. I was genuinely fixated on the idea of "incorrect translation". However I don't buy your argument about dromedary. If a taxonomic binomial is derived from a term used by indigenous population for a local plant, there are good reasons to believe that the terms match in their usage.
Neverteless, I have to agree that both of you convinced me that there is no reason to defend the older version of the article that tries to criticise the origins of some beliefs. This article is not the place for this. Mikkalai 23:32, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is, ultimately, the pith of my argument. ADH (t&m) 01:22, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected[edit]

I am happy to see that the issue is resolved, after reading through the talk page. I will unprotect the page, and Assume good faith in all editors in hopes that the article does not come under protection for an edit war and/or vandalism. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"prominent Russian writer"[edit]

It's possible the author is Irene Zabytko, who made this claim in "The Sky Unwashed", a novel based on the accident. Irene seems to be from Chicago, however, and may have made the association via a dictionary. It's also worth noting that that the Ukranian Bible does not use the word Chernobyl in Rev8:11 (or anywhere else). It can be found online.

To my mind, this casts further doubts on Elena Filatova'a site, as she really should know better.

Rather than edit the page, though, I'd be grateful if someone wants to double check this lot first, and ammend if correct: For that reason, I'm missing out my links so noone is misled. Google is your friend...

Vandalism[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the article on Chernobyl's name origin has been vandalised. Apparently, it originates from "pamala" (black) and "anderson" (stalks); ie 'Pamela Anderson".

Illustration needed[edit]

It would be very helpful if someone would take a few minutes to create a map showing exactly where chernobyl is, on the scale of the ukraine or perhaps europe itself. As of Jan 2007 this is not done

Wormwood again[edit]

Why is the translation cut out from the acticle? Here is a nice botanic reference with translation part, or look at the blog entry. --88.68.51.208 02:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC) / ru:User:Oal

Add a link to Pripyat??[edit]

if it says it was abandoned in 1986 in intro, how come it says later that there's lodgings, etc constructed? intro needs clarification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.84.57 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


It wasn't fully abandoned, people still live there, illegally.

a map?[edit]

suggestion: can anyone add a map to show where exactly the town is located in russia(/the world)? (131.130.121.106 07:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Devolution of a city...[edit]

I would find it interesting to see how nature treats a city that has literally been abandoned. Would it be possible to use this as an example or are there others? --Hourick 15:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned city?[edit]

From what I can tell, the city is not abandoned any longer and there are people living there. Should the article be changed to reflect that? — Alex(U|C|E) 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned city is linked to ghost town. The introduction of that article says "It may be a partial ghost town such as Tonopah, Nevada... A true ghost town is totally abandoned, such as Bodie, California, but often will see visitors..." Thus, it's not totally wrong to refer to Chernobyl as abandoned city. Officially, there are no permanent residents in Chernobyl. Unofficially, there are few, but it's incomparably less than before the accident. There are also temporary residents (workers, scientists, visitors). They have been there since the accident. If there is better terminology than "abandoned city" to characterize such situation, we should definite use it. --Novelbank 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wormwood again[edit]

Just wanted to inform you, that in both Ukrainian and Russian languages chornobil/chernobyl and polyn can be used interchangeably. Actually Russians have a single word for what you call mugwort and wormwood in English, just adding an adjective to distinguish between those species when needed.

In both Russian and Ukrainian translations of the Bible they don't use the word chernobyl though, they use polyn instead. But since chernobylnik in Russian is the same as "polyn polevaya", that makes no difference for native speakers.

The whole discussion that you had with Mikkalai is senseless, since those words (mugwort/wormwood) mean the same in the language in question (i.e. from which the power plant name comes from). We Russians cannot really understand the matter of your discussion, because our Biblical text mentions the very same plant as the nuclear power plant's name.


More Vandalism[edit]

Some highly intelligent and funny person substituted the year 1880 with 2009. I just reverted it back to the previous edit. Ljpernic 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Raion[edit]

The article makes mention of the city being in the Chernobyl Raion, but the Kiev Oblast page makes no mention of this raion. This raion has certainly existed in the past (see page 212 in: Marples, D. R. (1988) The social impact of Chernobyl. Houndmills, U.K.: Macmillan.) Chornobyl used to be the raion's capital, with Prypiat being the other city in the raion.

Looking at the map (halfway down the Kiev Oblast page) it does appear to be very plausible that the former Chernobyl Raion has been incorporated into Ivankivskyi Raion's territories. This seems a logical step with both cities evacuated and the Prypiat authorities having been transferred to Slavutych (in fact the election was held during a time in which Slavutych was still uninhabited). Yet I cannot find any mention of such event. Can someone perhaps get in touch with the Ivankiv authorities? Eddyspeeder (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Map[edit]

How about one?

Still radioactive?[edit]

The article says: "Chernobyl City and its surrounding suburbs are now home to nuclear scientists, maintenance officials for the Chernobyl Power Plant, Liquidation Officials, doctors, physicists, and most of all, radiation physicists. Although neighboring Pripyat remains unmaintained, Chernobyl has been renovated and is now home to more than 500 permanent residents, including visitors to the Zone of Alienation who stay at a local lodge in the Chernobyl suburbs."

It lists no outside articles that confirm that there are up to 500 people staying in Chernobyl. Even after 20+ years, there would still be trace amounts of radiation; at least enough to make you not want to stay for too long.

This paragraph needs to be sourced, since I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders if it is true or not.

kkarma (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey kkarma. I agree that this seems like a controversial detail that requires good sourcing and so Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence applies. Posting here is the right place to make your concern known. Of course, there's also the possibility that you can research this yourself and either source the statement, or replace with what is correct with a source which would come under the heading of "{{sofixit}}".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong picture[edit]

The first picture on the page titled "View of Chernobyl" shows Prypiat with nuclear power plant in the distance, not the city of Chernobyl that this article is about. Bladteth (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

== City status ==

I haven't really researched this yet but what exactly defines a settlement to be a city in that area? The article states that 15,000 people lived there prior to the accident which hardly sounds city sized to me, barely even makes it a town in my books, more like a very large village. Lots of articles and quotes casually refer to it as a city but are they correct/accurate? Opinions... 86.162.23.95 (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think 15.000 is to much. Most sources I know talk about 12.000 - 14.000. But not 50.000. And about city's, I have no idea about Ukraine but I was born in a city (with legal city rights) with 3.500 inhabitants. --Fano (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe not “in your book”, but it was certainly larger than a village, I would classify it as a town, it was too small to be a city, but surely not small enough to classify it as a village.


Name origin paragraph[edit]

What's the deal with the name origin paragraph?.. and the lengthy discussion here?? It's absolutely ridiculous! I can see a huge edit war and discussion above, so maybe somone has compromised on a previous (even nuttier) version to get to this. If you all step back and get objective you will see that the whole thing should be deleted, as while it has developed some importance to the involved editors, to 99.999% of the readers it is utter gibberish. An accurate concise one liner would be nice. 86.42.200.207 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chernobyl -> Chornobyl revisited[edit]

chernobyl is misspelled. Chornobyl is the correct spelling from Ukrainian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talkcontribs) 20:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Done to death. Please examine the talk page.
Actually, not it wasn't, so here's a little comparison:

The ratio is 35x-38x in favor of "Chernobyl". Case closed. --illythr (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. http://www.chornobyl.net/en/index.php?newsid=1163576381 -Rkononenko (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this new URL one of the 463 hits spelling "Chornobyl" found above, or an additional one? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Names: alternatives[edit]

Hey, at the moment we have: The city is named after the Ukrainian word for mugwort or wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris), which is чорнобиль "chornobyl". The word is a combination of the words chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks. That may signify burnt grass, perhaps prior to cultivation. Would it be possible that someone adds "an alternative ethymology is (...)" or something of that nature? Because at the moment it makes little sense to read both sentences without some sort of logical connector, it reads like black grass would be the ethymology of wormwood. (I don't want to encourage the trolls in that retarded name war though, geez). Thanks. 87.64.2.94 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it! 87.64.96.182 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Congrats! I did look at it yesterday but thought I would return later to find you have already done it, and pretty well too :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Chernobyl should redirect to Chernobyl disaster[edit]

That's what everyone that typed in chernobyl came to see, not an article explaining the name origin of the word "chernobyl". This article could be move to Chernobyl (city). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaptorHunter (talkcontribs) 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved by someone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


ChernobylChernobyl (city)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Do Not Move This Article Without a Request for Move and Consensus[edit]

Wikipedia naming policy is based on WP:COMMONNAME--the most common English name is the name of the article. If you want to move this article to "Chornobyl", then initiate a Request for Move and build a consensus for it with proof from English language sources that "Chornobyl" is the most common form found in English. --Taivo (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)