From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
==Norilsk is not closed city. ==

Non-Russian citizens have to request an invitation of the municipality of Norilsk to add to the visa and meet certain requirements. Access to Norilsk and other areas is regulated in Decree 470 of July 7, 1992 of russian code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Two factual errors[edit]

Having recently visited the city of Norilsk, I've found that the corresponding article has at least two factual errors. First of all, Russian citizens do not require a permit to visit Norilsk proper, only to visit the nearby port of Dudinka. Also, the CNN's report that "within 30 miles of the smelter there is not a single living tree" is certainly an exaggeration. (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

...and I have restored the CNN's statement (again). Verifiability, not truth is Wikipedia's policy. If you know the statement to be false, you need to find a reliable source proving that, but we can't just take your word for it. Thanks for catching the permit-related error, though (unsourced statements can be removed based on personal experiences). Please let me know if I need to clarify anything further. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding that CNN statement, it is contradicted by the satellite image that is already in the article, that shows healthy forests about 10 miles away. Kmusser (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the map; I was originally under the impression that google maps were used. The CNN statement is still a valid source (whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter as long as it is verifiable); it's just that a footnote is needed to clarify the contradiction. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we have a duty to repeat a journalistic statement that is directly contradicted by visible evidence. Feketekave (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to find a source which refutes CNN's claim, or we make the mistake of using wikipedia for original research (see WP:NOR). Ewen (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
BBC report suggests distance is 19 miles not 30. ( Steelwool (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the CNN reference, here're the reasons: a thirty mile radius represents and area of over 2,828 square miles as such the CNN claim, as quoted, is obviously , even to a nine year old, unverifiable. That should be enough really for anyone with a mind but additionally, I'll point out that Norilisk is situated approximately 3.5 degrees (several hundred miles) north of the Western Siberian Arctic Tree-line, in soil saturated by permafrost, the implication is that the article is deliberately equivocal. While the presence of the article may be verifiable, it's lack of veracity is highly conspicuous. I know that wiki is a bit of joke but if you're interesting salvaging some credibility you might consider reinstating this reference under a heading such as: Norilisk as focus of western propaganda. (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have traveled extensively in Norilsk, and have photographic evidence of trees growing in the city (visible along Leninsky Prospekt from Google Earth). The Putorana Pleateau has large tree-free areas, but that is due to the climatic zone. There are large forested areas between Norilsk and Talnakh at the Golubiye Ozero camps, also visible from satellite imagery. Verifiable or no, the statement is grossly inaccurate. The same story could easily be used merely to say that Norilsk is highly polluted, without making grand pronouncements of dubious provenance. Whoever has made this claim has clearly not verified it in person. (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed trivia section[edit]

I removed the section "Norilsk in popular culture." We don't really need this. It mostly mentions American works anyway, so its biased as well. Offliner (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

This section has been restored. It is decided policy that "In Popular Culture" sections are not WP:TRIVIA when the examples are researched and cited links which check out. Your desire to remove them appears to be according to the quasi-nationalistic ideals of you and your friend. This is only your point of view and such unilateral edits - especially with the rational you give above - are contrary to English Wikipedia policy. Please do not remove any non-vandalism content without discussion here on the Talk Page first. Doing will result in administrative referral. Thank you. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed this interesting stuff, and posted on your talk page first. I'm cross-posting it below, but I would also like to ask you to learn the difference between guidelines/essays and "decided policy", to assume good faith, and to not draw conclusions on people's motivations based on just two edits. In return I agree to serve as your "administrative referral" :)
Cross-post follows:
Regarding this, I would like to point out that WP:TRIVIA explicitly recommends to "see if there are sources for the effect of the topic on popular culture and consider using the items as a basis for an article that discusses that effect". You are thus welcome to create something like Norilsk in popular culture and work on it; there is no need to pollute the actual Norilsk article with this cruft. The section in its present form is merely a collection of random references to Norilsk in liturature and in film; it cannot possibly ever be complete (Norilsk has been mentioned in or has been a subject of hundreds of works), and the existing entries aren't even all that representative of Norilsk's effect on "popular culture" (whatever that includes).
I would appreciate your further insights on this; please feel free to solicit outside comments on the matter. I hope a few weeks should be enough (please let me know if it's not); I will leave this section alone in the meanwhile. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

I put it back in. Explain why meaningless argle-bargle like sister cities (pure logrolling) or who was born there (tells us little or nothing about the city, everybody is from somewhere) belong in if depiction in literature and art don't. Herostratus (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

...and I removed it again. Having the (I agree, quite meaningless) sister city and notable people sections has a consensus; retaining equally meaningless trivia cruft does not. While articles with meaningful Trivia sections do exist, they are far and few between, and Norilsk's, in the form you restored at least, is definitely not one of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 20, 2014; 12:03 (UTC)
Well fine. Herostratus (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


There is a statement in the article about ICBM silos in Putoran mountains.

Actually, sounds like a joke (how do you imagine transporting ICBM there unharmed?) and contradicts all the sources on Russian ICBMs I know.

Shouldn't that statement be deleted?

S.B. Odin (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted if no source is given. According to Britannica, there were silos nearby earlier, but it is unclear if there were any in 2001 [1]. Offliner (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting link. Britannica states there was an R-7 launch site there. That wasn't technicaly a silo (it was long before they were invented). Certainly it's abandoned if it ever existed.S.B. Odin (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no R-7 launch site there of course. That launch site was in Plesetck, in the European part of Russia. According to [2] there was a control site built in 80-s to control the flight of ICBM's from Plesetck test range to the test range in Kamchatka peninsula. And there were some king of devices for calibration of control equipment which looked like missiles. (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous user: Also, ICBM silos are mentioned as a reason for the city being closed. There is no evidence provided that this was the reason, nor that mining in the region is a reason for closing the city. At the same time, there is some evidence of other reasons for the city being closed, such as a desire to limit immigration from former Soviet republics. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The first heavy water plant for the sovit nclear proekt was located and opned 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of the city being closed, in my research in Norilsk, local politicians were suggesting that closing the city had nothing to do with either the mines or military facilities, but with migrants. There are large numbers of Azeri and Uzbek immigrants, and restrictions on foreigners are an easy way to restrict their access to the city. One cannot find something directly quoting local authorities on this line of reasoning, but there are other closed cities such as Novy Urengoy that have done this for the same reason ( Additionally, recent proposals to declare the entire Russian Arctic as a border zone would bolster the idea that these restrictions have much more to do with immigration than with military or resource concerns. The thesis I mentioned below also discusses this topic for Norilsk and Igarka specifically ( Schnabeltiere (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


This may be somewhat pedantic, but the census numbers for 2002 and 2010 are quite misleading. The satellite towns of Kayerkan, Talnakh, and Snezhnogorsk were excluded from the 2002 census as counting for Norilsk; looking at the data, they are listed separately and when added come close to the 174,000 number today. Because this is the way the 2002 census was carried out, the numbers should be listed, but a note to clarify that Norilsk hasn't grown by tens of thousands of residents would help. I've been there twice, and I can say for sure it is not a growing city. I don't have source links at hand, but they can be found in my thesis, as well as general demographic discussions ( (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note explaining the increase. Thanks for the suggestion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 10, 2014; 13:19 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

The city features in the novel The Altar of Bones. (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) well as in a multitude of other works. However, unless the city is a major subject of a well-known work, mentions such as this fall under WP:TRIVIA (the rationale behind which is well explained by WP:IPC).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 2, 2016; 17:01 (UTC)