Talk:Chernobyl/Archive 1

Elena Filatova
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 (talk • contribs) 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:
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
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
Regarding the move, see. 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
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 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 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 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, the second page is cached at , 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: Mikkalai 03:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The latter (mis)translation have led to some bizarre theories of the authors of Left Behind

Removal of Russian equivalents
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
According to the 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. &rarr;Raul654 22:55, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Chernobyl vs Chornobyl
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[].
 * VladimirN did not provide evidence that he worked in Chornobyl, therefore we ignore his argument

It plays a big difference because Chornobyl is the real name and Chernobyl is a fake from the past There are enough examples of Chornobyl on the Internet. Russians are doing everything possible to block the real names of Ukrainian cities The city of Chornobyl has been free of Russian Soviet occupation for 27 years, therefore all cities need to be replaced with real names. It is interesting to me when the insult of the Ukrainians ends by using the nicknames written by Russians in Moscow without the participation of Ukrainians When do you end up with Ukraine as a Negro before the arrival of Martin Luther King?

Distance between Chernobyl and the power plant.
-

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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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" (A&#968;&#953;&#957;&#952;&#959;&#962;) (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
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
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"
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
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
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
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??
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?
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...
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?
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 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)

Ghost towm ?
The article states the place is a near ghost town with just a few power plant workers/liquidators resident there (part time) but looking around the place on google streetview it seems to be doing remarkably well. Quite a few pedestrians walking about in the streets and parks (all of which seem fairly well kept) How can this be ???? Also whats with the large pipework one sees around some of the apartment blocks and transversing roads on overhead gantries ? Is this some kind of district heating system ? 90.220.149.152 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wormwood again
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
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
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
How about one?

Still radioactive?
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 Verifiability 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
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)

Name origin paragraph
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)

City status

 * Whether a municpality is a city, town, township, hamlet, village, etc., depends entirely upon local legal definition. In England, for example, a city is a town that has a cathedral.  Thus, when Chelmsford's parish church was remodeled into Chelmsford Cathedral, the Town of Chelmsford became the City of Chelmsford. In the U.S. State of New York and other northeastern states, a "township" is a municipal corporation within a "town" whereas in most of the United States "town" is a generic term for a municipal corporation (village or city, respectively), legally within one or more townships; or legally adjacent to one or more townships. In the State of California, which abolished townships in 1961, the words "city" and "town" are synonymous by law - thus, e.g., while their formal names are Town of Hillsborough and Town of Atherton, they are cities as a matter of law. In the State of Michigan, there are cities, villages, charter townships, and civil townships.  A township (civil or charter) is an administrative division of a county, which is an administrative division of a state; thus, townships cannot cross county lines.  Cities are fully autonmous jurisdictions that report to the state through the county or counties in which they are situated (e.g. Milan, Michigan is located in two counties), while villages are subordinate to the townships and counties in which they are located.  E.g. Before Chelsea, Michigan voted to elevate itself from village to city, it was part of two neighbouring townships but is now not part of either of them.  As to size, there are minimum standards to incorporate as a village or city but no maximum standards; and incorporation is not required.  Thus, there are cities in Washtenaw County that have smaller populations than some townships and charter townships:  1) City of Ann Arbor, 113,934, 2) Charter Township of Ypsilanti, 53,363, 3) Charter Township of Pittsfield, 34,663, 4) City of Ypsilanti, 21,018, 5) Scio Township, 20,081, 6)Charter Township of Superior, 13,058, 7) City of Saline, 8,810, 8) Charter Township of York, 8,708, 9) Township of Northfield (southern Whitmore Lake), 8,245, and rounding out the top 10)Township of Webster, 6,784 - which is larger than the other three cities in Washtenaw County, both villages, the two remaining charter townships, and the remaining 11 civil townships.


 * So, whether Chornobyl (Ukrainian spelling has now replaced the Russian spelling) is/was a city or had some other appellation depends entirely upon how Ukraine defines "city" and whether or not the governments of Soviet Ukraine or/and post-Soviet Ukraine classified it as such, or called it something else. According to Wikipedia, Chornobyl achieved city status in 1941.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:310D:8EBE:E42B:CAD3 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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.


 * You should classify it as the Government of Ukraine classified it. Per Wikipedia, the Government of Soviet Ukraine made it a city in 1941; and that designation did not change afterward, except the City of Chornobyl (Ukrainian spelling has replaced the old Russian spelling) was effectively wiped off the map.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:310D:8EBE:E42B:CAD3 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

City or town?

 * the city had about 14,000 residents


 * According to Wikipedia, it held city status from 1941 until is de facto obliviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:310D:8EBE:E42B:CAD3 (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would normally call a place with only 14,000 inhabitants a village rather than a city, but I'm not familiar with Ukranian standards for this kind of thing. Should we maybe replace "city" by "town" to be neutral in this regard? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We call it whatever sources call it. Politically, it was a city. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now the real problem is why it should bother you that it is not being designated as a town. How does it concern you? In Ukrainian language it is designated as "misto" same as Kiev, but you decided to come up with own logic or justification as it seems. Does it hurt your pride? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're aggressively questioning in reply to a person that argued the same as you; please focus on your arguments instead. I believe we should follow the official Ukrainian designation (despite the majority of news outlets using town, see below), which indeed seems to be мі́сто (city, same as Kyiv), officially with 0 residents, see e.g. this census. Tokenzero (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , a designation of populated place is not based exclusively on the amount of people living in it. It is based on official designation whether it is Ukrainian or Surinamese. Why are you emphasizing Ukrainian designation as something not normal? Why are you bringing "majority of news outlets"? For long time I lived in the village of Skokie, Illinois where population is over 60,000 and it has nothing to do with a farm settlement as it is highly urbanized. Nonetheless, it is designated as a village. Now, your majority of media outlets may call it whatever they want, but it will stay a village unless its designation would be changed by its Skokian-native municipality and approved by the State of Illinois. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Chernobyl -> Chornobyl revisited
chernobyl is misspelled. Chornobyl is the correct spelling from Ukrainian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 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)
 * Google Scholar (since 2001): +chornobyl -chernobyl = 463 hits. +chernobyl+-chornobyl = 17,700.
 * Google Books (21st century, English): +chornobyl -chernobyl = 1,300 hits. +chernobyl -chornobyl = 45,800 hits.
 * 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
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
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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Chernobyl → Chernobyl (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
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)

GOCE
Just finished the copy edit, removing the template, added some citation needed tags, etc. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl gerb.gif

2017 population
I removed the un-referenced mention of a 207 population.

Chernobyl is within the Exclusion Zone, which is an area of mandatory resettlement.

Chernobyl town is inhabited, but this is by those working for the decommissioning of the power plant and in the monitoring / clean-up of the Zone. These are not permanent residents, they live their on a temporary basis, reducing the time they spend there for obvious occupational risk reasons.

There are some returnees, but they o not live in Chernobyl town, they live in their small-holdings and nearby villages. There are also a lot less than 690 of them by current counts.

A count of the temporary population of Chernobyl would be interesting to include, as well as a count of the returnees, but I cannot find any reference for this. For now, I've just removed the count as it's miselading and probably incorrect; as Chernobyl, technically, has no permanent residents. Cooper 42 (Talk)(Contr) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

City name is Chornobyl
As it appears in the US Geo Names Database http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html Chornobyl is approved, chernobyl is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.86.34 (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is only binding on US government agencies. General English usage is still Chernobyl. Remember, English is not a regulated language. Government decrees are pretty much irrelevant.--Khajidha (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * {ping:Khajidha} where is the link Please give a link and a community decision that the name of this city must meet the US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES standard. Your refusal for me is only your personal opinion to block name changes. I must be sure that your refusal is based on policies for all countries.
 * For example, recording the name of this sportsman Shovkovskiy in Russian name instead of the present Shovkovskyi and many other cases - this all confirms Moyc's conclusion: there is a conspiracy of European Wikipedia looking for any opportunity to ignore the Ukrainian present--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be having trouble comprehending English. I'm not the one claiming that we should follow governmental standards. We follow common English usage. If that common usage does not match what Ukrainians prefer, that is their problem not ours. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only "conspiracy" at work here is the convention to use English. If said sportsman is more often referred to in English by the Russian name, then that is what we should and will use. --Khajidha (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It`s city of of Ukraine. Correct spell Chornobyl on Ukrainian language. Should be renamed "Chornobyl"--UkrainianCossack (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did notice that this article is not written in Ukrainian, right? And that the spelling Chornobyl is already listed as the Ukrainian form of the name. The simple fact is that the ENGLISH name of this place is Chernobyl. --Khajidha (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Chernobyl or Chornobyl?
The spelling of the city in this article is drastically inconsistent. It is spelled Chernobyl in some places, Chornobyl in others. The article needs to adapt a consistent spelling. J I P &#124; Talk 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was edited by one of the users in order to change it to Ukrainian transliteration. However, Wikipedia should use the most widely known terms and names. This city is infamous known for a nuclear disaster which occurred there during Soviet era when Russian was in use in that city. So this word entered to all other languages directly from Russian and hence uses Russian transliteration. The name of Chernobyl is widely used in literature, science, fiction etc. So it should remain in its most widely known form.--Orange-kun (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether it's Chernobyl or Chornobyl. My point is that the article should be consistent, pick one spelling and stick to it. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

interesting situation with translation most of the world-famous cartographic internet services began using Chornobyl: googl maps (english version ), yandex international, wego.here.com. michelin.com Text sources in different tr4anslations interesting situation with translation We hope in the near future, the English Wikipedia is completely cleared of the use of Russian fakes (reminiscent of the horrors when Ukrainians were in a Muscovite-Russian prison from the 17th century until 1991) for the geography of Ukraine--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We hope in the near future that Ukrainians will grow up enough to realize that different languages are different and that to try to control the forms of the words used by another language is horrendously arrogant. You'd think that a people who experienced a concerted effort to destroy their language would understand this better. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , OK lets continue to call Saint Petersburg as Leningrad and Volgograd as Stalingrad or Bejing as Peking. Should I keep going? Why are you alienate Ukrainians as most awkward one? Are they the most awkward ones in this situation? The city name for Saint Petersburg as Leningrad is pretty wide in use and difference in spelling is not in a single vowel. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , how do you like the recent change of Astana to Nur-Sultan in a blink of an eye? Those Kazakhstanis are taking up on the whole English and Russian worlds now, I tell you. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All I was ever asking about is why this article uses two different spellings of the city at the same time. I don't have an opinion about which spelling is correct. J I P  &#124; Talk 15:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , my apologies I did not try to make it personal towards you, but you did mention that the name should not be changed in context of discussion the name of Chernobyl as some participants seems to be hopeful of stupid Ukrainian who did not grow up enough. In English language the name of Chernobyl in its general meaning was associated with the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station built by the Soviets who majorly were Ruskies or of Balalaika-culture. Generally speaking no one in the World suspected that it was named after a local city and not care its true name. Now if you interested in the reason, I hope you understood that one should be sensitive or understanding why there is a problem with two names. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're saying completely nonsense; Leningrad and Petersburg are not the same nor the different spelling of the same word. Chernobyl, Чернобыль and Чорнобиль are the same word in different languages; English term originally derivies from Russian Чернобыль because Russian dominated that time in the area. You're trying to unify every Ukraine-related topic with the same spelling, but English language has its own rules. This is exactly the same why I'm not asking to move Saint Petersburg to Sankt-Peterburg.--Orange-kun (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please focus on arguments you can make instead of commenting somewhat offensively about motivations of others. The Chernobyl vs Chornobyl discussion was there for a very long time and I believe consistently the majority of editors opted for Chernobyl, with the occasional Ukrainian person coming in and ignoring the whole preceding discussion. If you want to change that, you should build up an argument that the majority of recent, independent, reliable English-language sources uses Chornobyl (because that's how this is decided, per WP:COMMONNAME, see also WP:NAMECHANGES). I'd start for example as follows:


 * Major news media outlets
 * Reuters – town of Chernobyl
 * Associated Press – mostly town of Chernobyl
 * New York Times – mostly town of Chernobyl, sometimes city of Chernobyl
 * the Guardian – mostly Chernobyl town or town of Chernobyl
 * Financial Times – one instance of town of Chernobyl
 * The Times – town of Chernobyl


 * Map services
 * Google Maps – Chornobyl (at least when loaded from the UK)
 * Bing Maps – Chernobyl
 * HERE.com – Chornobyl


 * Other references
 * CIA World Factbook – Chornobyl
 * Oxford Reference – Chernobyl, a town
 * Oxford World Reference – Chernobyl (Chornobyl), a city
 * other Oxford publications – 508 entries for Chernobyl, only 5 for Chornobyl of which 4 use it as a secondary name after Chernobyl
 * the Free Dictionary – Chernobyl according to 4 sources, "Chernobyl (or Chornobyl)" according to 1 source; city in 3 sources, town in 1.


 * Statistics
 * Google nGrams Chernobyl roughly 75 times more than Chornobyl, but virtually no results when searching together with town or city.
 * number of results in Google Search – "city of Chernobyl" 1'080'000, "town of Chernobyl" 580'000, "Chernobyl city" 81'000, "Chernobyl town" 37'500, "city of Chornobyl" 22'000, "town of Chornobyl" 11'800, "Chornobyl city" 5'520, "Chornobyl town" 1'460
 * Google Scholar – "town of Chernobyl" 281, "city of Chernobyl" 201, "town of Chornobyl" 29, "city of Chornobyl" 21

In summary: orders of magnitude more of Chernobyl vs Chornobyl, even in context of recent references to the city or town. No clear majority for city vs town (it seems media outlets prefer town, other references prefer city). Tokenzero (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , first of all I did not state that I wanted to change anything, I was pointing to ignorance and arrogance. Wikipedia changed article about Astana to Nur-Sultan despite WP:COMMONNAME and all your google searches and other so called "media outlets". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NAMECHANGES and check for yourself that e.g. Reuters, Associated Press, Google Maps, CIA World Factbook ... use Nur-Sultan since the name change.Tokenzero (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am familiar with Wikipedia policies, buddy. Did not I state that I am not pursuing the change? The subject started with question what spelling should there be and then one of participants stated that Ukrainians should grow up. Now how adequate is that statement? And what are you personally trying to prove me? The policy states that Wikipedia is not "crystal ball" and that what I was saying. You should stop throwing policies at me. Chornobyl is a proper English name for it and it will change one day same as Peking changed Bejing, Rangoon change to Yangon, Calcutta changed to Kolkata and so on. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the name for the city is not native to English language and is based on Russian language. The same thing happened to other post-colonial states throughout the World. If I call the city Chornobyl, it does not really mean that I call in wrong English. It is conditionally adopted name and could be changed. Before the Chernobyl disaster, no one new about neither about Chernobyl or Chornobyl or Czarnobyl. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It`s city of of Ukraine. Correct spell Chornobyl on Ukrainian language. Should be renamed "Chornobyl"--UkrainianCossack (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It mast be Chornobyl as it's Ukrainian name written this way. Євген Чкалов (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Region
Which region is Chernobyl in?

In England we have historical counties, ceremonial counties and regions.

The ceremonial counties are the only ones which matter however, and they are the only ones which are used when writing an address.

For example I live in Bradford, West Yorkshire, England.

Bradford is the city. West Yorkshire is the county. And England is the country.

With the districts/regions/raions of the Ukraine however I can't work out which are the relevant ones, equivalent to an English county or a US state.

Is it the Kiev Oblast Raion or the Ivankiv Raion?

For example is it Chernobyl, Kiev Oblast, Ukraine or Chernobyl, Ivankiv, Ukraine?

Danstarr69 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is optional to indicate the Raions, but a serious issue not to indicate the Oblast. So basically it is Ivankiv Raion in/of Kiev Oblast. Thus, it would be Chernobyl, Kiev Oblast or Chernobyl, Ivankiv Raion, Kiev Oblast but totally not a Chernobyl, Ivankiv, Ukraine. Oblast is a 1st level adm division (like US state) while Raion is a 2nd level (like US county).--Orange-kun (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , unlike the English or British administrative divisions that are based rather on historical regions and common accepted by the local populations, administrative division in the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union has different tradition and is based on colonial administration of the main city/populated place after which the territory is subjugated/subordinated. To avoid confusion whether you talking about the populated or its raion or oblast plays the importance. By the established standards bigger region is denoted as Oblast sometimes accepted as province in English world and Raion sometimes accepted as district. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Azagarium
That's an interesting find and definitely deserves may deserve a mention. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there's anything near a scientific consensus about what "Azagarium" was, on Ptolemy's map. The article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia doesn't even mention Chernobyl, but rather a few other possibilities, including Kiev, Dnipro, or Podil. Tokenzero (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

hi. It's not my find. I split the huge sausage of a presumed "History" paragraph into subsections with their own heading. It's always useful, since - as is the case now with you - only then do most editors notice what can be expanded on, inaccuracies, anachronisms - and plain mistakes. Dumping "stuff" into an unstructured article is only putting readers off. But to your point: I know nothing about that, it just felt a bit fishy to me too, so please go ahead and either start a discussion on the talk-page, or directly with the editor who placed it here (find him in the edit history; I hope you're a patient guy), or if you are fully sure that it's a mistake, remove it. And resist the s...storm like a brave Cossack :) Cheers,  Arminden (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, misread the edit history. But indeed I liked your edit because of the much needed subsections :) Tokenzero (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you introduced that Azagarium paragraph. Do you know if there are any other sources mentioning Azagarium=Chernobyl? Tokenzero (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will add it either to the article or to this talk subject. I do agree that the problem with Azagarium is not completely clear and there are other versions of interpretation of the Azagarium's locations, particularly the already mentioned Kiev's Podil which one of researchers claims that was built initially as one of the Roman's military camps and could make sense based on the location and to what the researcher points. The fact that Azagarium is Chornobyl/Chernobyl, according to the source I added, is based on Polish sources rather than local and could be erroneous or not precise. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As a rule: mainstream theories come first, fringe theories are either left aside or at the most introduced as "controversial", "lacking consensus", "fringe" etc. As it is, users are getting the wrong impression. Arminden (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * hi. A lot of it looks like your own research, which is strictly forbidden on Wiki. Even w/o being "legalistic": it's a very slippery slope, especially when it's such an outdated theory and the primary source is from Antiquity. The whole bit put together by you regarding the location of Azagarium, by combining disparate secondary references (centuries-old dictionaries) and probably a copy of Ptolemy's map which isn't even linked here, should be removed right away. Nobody but you can tell how you came to the result written there, and that's a complete no-no. If you do find new sources (authors) supporting this identification, go ahead and quote them. As it is now, it doesn't just not have any real value, but it's only misleading. A scholar of ancient geography might be able to gain something out of it, but not a regular Wiki user, and they're our only target. Sorry, I know you've put work into this, but the result is not acceptable as it is now. I leave it to you to remove it. Don't give up :) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please explain how it looks like my own research. I simply added the fact that and provided appropriate reference. The refence I provided was published in the 17th century. The fact that Chernobyl was known in Europe in such way is not my own research. The first mentioning of the place does not necessarily constitute its foundation. Would you not agree with that? Cheers. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

, hi. Just check the "citation needed" and whatever other tags I added and the edits I made: the article text is not supported by the quoted sources in those places. a) The map of Ptolemy as such is not allowed as a source (that's how I understand Wiki rules; we're not allowed to describe ourselves the content of images - maps, photos, video clips), but that's a bit "legalistic", so let's put it aside for now. Sometimes informed common sense is better that rules, IMHO. But even so, there isn't even a link to the relevant map segment that you describe! b) Accepted sources are secondary literature, i.e. academic works discussing the primary sources - the map. The two old dictionaries don't deal with much of what is written in the paragraph. No mention of the location of Azagarium in relation to Amodoca, the mountains or the Borysthenes/Dnieper. Coming back to my "informed common sense" comment: the stress is on "informed". Ancient maps might have the East at the top, or segments of the map might have a different orientation than the rest ("twists"), there are old conventions one must have studied, etc., so only scholars with specific knowledge can comment in an "informed" manner. And even they end up with very different, divergent theories.

Please, be more careful with typos. Ferrari not Ferari, Amodoca (city) not Amadoca (so written in the quoted William Smith dictionary; if the typo is his, you must bring proof), Borysthenes with th and not Borystenes. The same goes for wikilinks: Borysthenes offers several modern options, that's why I added Dnieper between brackets.

Not sure "Lexicon universale" deserves a red link, certainly not as it is now. It sounds like a very generic title, in C17 they had much longer ones, like "Universal Lexicon comprising the learned description of the World as seen by... and based on..." - use part of that, or add year between brackets ["Lexicon universale (1670)" or "Lexicon universale (Ferrari)" or both]. But is it an important ("Wiki-notable") work? Does it deserve a Wiki article? Do you want to write it, or hope smb. will in the foreseeable future? I'm not educated enough to tell.

Altogether: more care for a clean, clear, accurate aspect of the article. Always keep the purpose in mind: a user who either first came across the term, or one who knows a bit more and wants a few more in-depth comments, they should both profit from it. It's an encyclopedia. But most definitely, go ahead, you're bringing valuable information and I thank you for that. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop. You must learn the basics, then edit. Now I saw your last contributions. Important information, but YOU MUST HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR THE USER. Don't just dump stuff into the article. Look how others do it: how to quote properly, how to caption pictures, EVERYTHING. The maps and pictures uploaded on WikiCommons often do NOT have proper, or even correct captions. Use some common sense, or ask for help, but don't just copy-and-paste the file name as caption: they're almost useless to most users. Also, use logic: if you dump an ancient map, written in characters most people cannot read, without pointing out WHERE to look for Azagarium (it's written in TINY letters), and what the main features are (Black Sea, Dnieper,...), then IT IS COMPLETELY USELESS! People don't come here to start a research, but to get readily available, simple information. What I mean with "most people cannot read": you and me either, to be honest; what you mentioned as Amadoca and the old book as Amodoca seems to read Amodori... something, and there's an Amodora palus, lake, and an Amadon (?), too. Hand-written in old-fashioned characters, on a god knows how (in)accurate later copy after Ptolemy - it's NOT our business to deciphre it! To tell "ri" from "n" and so forth. Not yours & mine, and certainly not the user's. So please, either you can offer useful info for the USER, or you please do take a step back and study how others do it. Sorry, I appreciate your passion and good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions :)) Take care, Arminden (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Chornobyl not Chernobyl.
We are talking about Ukrainian SSR. Language is Ukrainian. Road signs in a city is ChOrnobyl. Map sign is ChOrnobyl. Correct historical name is ChOrnobyl. Is it ok if we will name USA (us. United States of America) as SSA (ru. Soedinyonneeye Shtaty Ameriki)? No, thats ridiculous. Ukrainian language is not similar to Russian. Author, please, fix typo.

Regards, --Bohdan Tkhir (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not a typo. This is the English language version of Wikipedia - we use the most commonly used spelling for place names in English language sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). I don't know anything about the differences between Ukrainian and Russian pronunciation/spelling, but a skim through the sources seems to suggest that Chernobyl is by far the most common spelling in English. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a typo, it's a grammar mistake. I understand why the city is called Chernobyl in HBO's miniseries — because the story is about the Soviet Chernobyl. Yep people still call it that almost 30 years after the city changed its name. Ukraine is trying to get away from its Soviet past and today's Russian influence and things like calling its cities wrong and how they aren't called for almost 30 years just makes things worse and this is why to this day a lot of people don't even know such a country as Ukraine. They think "Hmm, yeah, Chernobyl is that Soviet city where they love Stalin and Lenin, and Kiev also yeah of course". And you are making things EVEN WORSE naming the city Chernobyl on Wikipedia where a huge part of people found out about it. And you even locked it so no one can correct this mistake. Shame on you, page author. Ytrav (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2021

 * 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: On strength of argument (regarding what is a primary topic, and per the title criteria regarding common and natural titles), there is consensus against the proposed move. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Chernobyl → Chernobyl (Ukraine) – Users searching for "Chernobyl" are far more likely to be seeking Chernobyl disaster instead of Chernobyl (Ukraine). This is the common usage established in news coverage. Chernobyl should redirect to Chernobyl disaster, where a hatnote noting the redirect and pointing to other usage would suffice. Chernobyl (disambiguation) should identify Chernobyl disaster as the main topic. fgnievinski (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like this article was moved to Chernobyl (city) in 2011 (with reason "This should redirect to the chernobyl disaster."). It was moved back in 2014. It doesn't appear that either move was discussed. Colin M (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also worth browsing [[Chernobyl] wikilinks]. A significant minority are indeed mistargeted (e.g. "victims of Chernobyl"). There are many more along the lines of "the Chernobyl accident" where the wikilink isn't 100% unambiguously wrong, but would probably be more relevant if it went to the article on the accident. I would say a little under half of the wikilinks are referring to the city proper. Which does suggest a ptopic issue. The best solution to avoid mistargeted wikilinks would be to make the basename a dab, though that would lead to a worse experience for search. Colin M (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn’t that a bit like moving it for editors, rather than for readers? The problem isn’t that the name is wrong, it’s that editors are careless, right? —Michael Z. 01:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Compromise solution: mass edit all existing Chernobyl links to Chernobyl (disambiguation), then proceed with the original proposal. fgnievinski (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, two things: 1) Badly targeted wikilinks still ultimately hurt the reader. 2) If editors are often assuming that Chernobyl points to an article about the nuclear disaster, that provides a pretty good indication that an average reader will have the same misapprehension when they type "Chernobyl" into the search bar. Colin M (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No matter which article the name links to, some editors will put in links with wrong assumptions, and then others will improve the writing to clarify or change the link to disambiguate. This situation will always occur and will continue to be improved in individual articles, and we don’t know if moving this will make it statistically an infinitesimal fraction better or worse. The fact remains that a plain link in a vacuum labelled “Chernobyl” should lead to the article about Chernobyl. So I don’t think the existence of imperfectly edited articles is a rationale to move. —Michael Z. 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The disaster is clearly the main topic folks are looking for. I have myself searched for the disaster more than once, and been disappointed that the Chernobyl page was about the place, not the incident. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, however from browsing Category:Cities in Ukraine by oblast it seems that Ukrainian cities are always disambiguated by their oblast, so the new title should be "Chernobyl, Kyiv Oblast". Rublov (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ukraine" is used when it's unambiguous. See Komarno, Ukraine; Iziaslav, Ukraine; Busk, Ukraine; etc... 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the city may act as a broad-concept article but if moved it should go to Chernobyl (city) per WP:PLACEDAB since the disaster is also in Ukraine.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 06:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of making Chernobyl first a DAB in the short term then a WP:BCA in the long term. fgnievinski (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nomination. Sean Stephens (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is not our normal practice, when a place name is associated with a disaster (or other event), to redirect to the disaster.  This applies even when the disaster is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the place name.  Three Mile Island points to the power station.  Fukushima is a disambiguation page with higher priority given to place names.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki point to the cities, not the nuclear bombs.  Krakatoa points to the mountain, not the 1883 eruption.  Aberfan links to the village, not the Aberfan disaster.  With this background, I do not accept that the disaster is necessarily the primary topic of Chernobyl. Kahastok talk 09:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose first proposal I believe Chernobyl (base name) should become a dab page because neither of them is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 36.77.93.104 (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support converting to a dab page as there are quite a few "likely" search terms, including (but not limited to) the place, the disaster, the power plant and the TV series.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support this alternative, moving Chernobyl (disambiguation) to Chernobyl, and Chernobyl to Chernobyl, Ukraine (with a comma, btw.) 162 etc. (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the parent category is already written this way. —Michael Z. 17:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Both these Chernobyls are in Ukraine. The proposed parenthetical disambiguator is a complication with no benefit. Furthermore, the binary calculation lacks for ignoring Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and Chernobyl New Safe Confinement, all in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support DAB at base name, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirecting to the disaster but fine with a DAB since Chernobyl (miniseries) gets 147,390 views, compared with only 44,233 for the city but if moved we should consider using city to disambiguate from the disaster though per WP:DABCONCEPT I'm not sure if a move is needed at all since Chernobyl (miniseries) refers to the disaster and thus the city.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirecting to the disaster. This seems counterintuitive given that it only has its name because of the city (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ). A DAB is fine if you want. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kahastok—blindlynx (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Kahastok. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose per Kahastok. In addition, neither of them (city or disaster) is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so the base name should become a DAB page. 180.242.74.101 (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support moving the city article to some other title, since it is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move per nom, but to Chernobyl, Ukraine, which is the standard disambiguator for populated place names. No opinion on whether Chernobyl (disambiguation) should be moved to the base title. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose any change. If it isn't broken, there's no reason to mend it. The city and the meltdown are each at a stable title which unmistakably represents what it is, and are distinguished by WP:NATURAL means, which according to our policy is preferable to any other kind of disambiguation. The present title of the article is unquestionably its WP:COMMONNAME in English; rightly or wrongly, we use the common English spelling rather than any transliteration. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very very very strongest oppose I believe it should be like this. 116.206.35.25 (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Černobyl'" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Černobyl&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic
Just an interesting and eerie fact for non-slavic speaking people here. The first part of the word "Cherno" (in many variations) means "black" in all (or at least most of) slavic languages. The second part "byl" means "true story" in Russian. So for Russian-speaking people the word "Chernobyl" itself, even apart from the 1986-tragedy, sounds quite negative. 176.59.12.198 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)