Talk:Chernobyl (miniseries)

Vichnaya Pamyat
Vichnaya Pamyat is in Ukrainian language. Вічная пам'ять or вічна пам'ять means the eternal memory.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Episodes should probably be split into separate articles, or at least a list
SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a five-episode self-contained miniseries, so I don't really see the need for it. Of course, if editors are willingly to create said episode articles and provide enough real-world information (production, background, critical reception, etc.) that is unique to each episode, then that would be appropriate. There would be no need for a list, there is just five episodes; that's unnecessary splitting. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's no need to split to a separate list when there's only five episodes. —Lowellian (reply) 19:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

An episode besides plot summary and reception might also compare the fictionalized depictions with the real events. This is currently the best-rated anything-ever on IMDb and professional reviews are also rave, second only to films-starring-black-protagonists. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Right... you can suggest/wish an article to be created all you want, but the fact is, the work actually has to be done first. The articles aren't going to magically write themselves. Your split template isn't needed, because the episode table does not need to be split. Split to what, another article? Why? You don't split a series with five episodes to another article, you do that when there's 50+ episodes (WP:TVSPLIT). Judging by the editing activity here, most seem to be focused on the episode summaries, there hasn't been much expansion to the Production or Reception section since it's premiered. Again, if editors are willing to create the episode articles, with enough real-world information to justify it, then by all means, go ahead. I'm removing the split template, because it's unwarranted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the only person out there in the world and this article now is getting up to quarter million views a day. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting it... it doesn't matter if this article gets 50 billion views a day, there needs to be editors that are willing to create the content, it won't appear out of nowhere. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

They won't know about it if you don't stop removing improvement tags. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If an editor wants to improve an article they certainly wouldn't need a tag telling them to do it, they would just do it. Esuka (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not talk page of improvement tags. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I already have begun to work with the episodes articles. Today I created the episodes drafts and I'm begging to work with it. Unfortunately I won’t have much time to finish them, so I would like to ask for help me to finish the drafts. If you help me with your contribution, I will be happy to know that you are contributing with the drafts. These are the following drafts that I created for the episodes: Draft:1:23:45, Draft:Please Remain Calm (Chernobyl), Draft:Open Wide, O Earth, Draft:The Happiness of All Mankind and Draft:Vichnaya Pamyat. I hope that we can find enough information to create these articles. Ulises1126 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Filming section
It is stated in the Chernobyl (miniseries) section that the filming took place solely in the Fabijoniškės district of Vilnius, which is not true. Some scenes were also filmed in Justiniškės. There are countless Lithuanian media reports about the filming taking place in both districts. For example, an article from May 5, 2018], where schemes of traffic restrictions in both Fabijoniškės and Justiniškės can be seen. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Attendance
How can I remove information from an interesting topic for readers from an article with an attendance of 200,000 views per day and refer to a category with a traffic of 30 views per day? It is understandable that readers will not really be able to see the information because of ignorance in the structure of Wikipedia and ignorance of the availability of categories. So this is an illegal extraction because of the inequality of the proposed alternative.


 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-05-06&end=2019-06-05&pages=Chernobyl_(miniseries)
 * https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-05-06&end=2019-06-05&pages=Category:Works_about_the_Chernobyl_nuclear_disaster .--Yasnodark (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A better idea might be to simply link to List of Chernobyl-related articles in the See also section. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shellenberger, a vocal supporter of Nuclear Energy (please see his Save Diablo Canyon campaign, Save Illinois Nuclear campaign, Save New York Nuclear campaign, and South Korea Nuclear campaign), has recently written a Forbes article that questions the historical accuracy of the series. An editor has suggested including his opinions in the historical accuracy section of this article, but he does not seem to be an expert in this particular area. I, and at least one other editor of this page, think that this is not a good idea.

Some of the information that he reports as fact is easily disproved. Consider the following statement he made in the Forbes article: "In reality, Chernobyl proves why nuclear is the safest way to make electricity. In the worst nuclear power accidents, relatively small amounts of particulate matter escape, harming only a handful of people."

Penny for your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.Marcus (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Old version: — diff:

"American author Michael Shellenberger wrote that the "most egregious of Chernobyl sensationalism is the depiction of radiation as contagious, like a virus. ... There is no good evidence that Chernobyl radiation killed a baby nor that it caused any increase in birth defects. ... At the end of the show, HBO claims there was “a dramatic spike in cancer rates across Ukraine and Belarus,” but this too is wrong. ... the “Bridge of Death” is a sensational urban legend and there is no good evidence to support it.""
 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, please forgive me this as this my first time editing a wikipedia page. I made the unsigned-in comment. A lot of the things presented in his article are cherry-picked responses. This comment in particular in the Forbes article is one of the leading offenders. "There is no good evidence that Chernobyl radiation killed a baby nor that it caused any increase in birth defects." This is in direct contradiction to other studies The source used for this quote links back to an article published in Feb 1987 Less than one year after the accident happened. Even in the article Dr. Robert Gale states there are no physical deformities. But mental damage is still be expected, citing that it was to early to tell. Which was proven false by the increase of DNA mutations faced by the Liquidators children. later reports state that children born after the disaster had increased risk for lymphadenopathy and thyroid disease. Chernobyl Children International also deals with children who are still being passed down the effects of the Chernobyl accident. --Doyen227 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi DOyen227, welcome to Wikipedia. I tend to agree with you that Shellenberger's article seems to be more about damage control than it is about fact checking.  While reading his article, I noticed more than a few instances where he attempts to discredit the series in a dishonest way.  Even if you overlook the statements he makes that seem to say nuclear accidents don't hurt but a few people, there were times where he misrepresents events in the series itself.
 * For example, he states that the series crosses over into pseudoscience when it depicts a nurse being burned when she touches a first-responder. He explains that this is not possible, that people do not become radioactive when they are exposed to radiation.  This is dishonest, since the series is not making the assertion that people exposed to radiation become radioactive and that they will cause burns when touched; the series is asserting that materials from the Chernobyl site, including graphite dust from the reactor core, are covering the uniforms of the first responders, and can cause radiation burns over time (the nurse is shown grabbing the first responder by his uniform, and later developing burns on her hands).
 * In another part of the article, he states that in the series, we are made to believe that radiation plays a causative role in the crash of a helicopter, whereas in real life, the helicopter crash was caused purely by its collision with a chain hanging from a crane. In fact, the series shows the collision with the chain.
 * IMO, this Forbes article is a collection of opinions made by a man who is not a historian, and is being used to provide an argument about the historical accuracy of the series.Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oxford University’s Martin School conducted a major review (September 2017) of the health impacts of low levels of radiation and found "no convincing evidence of increased risk of birth defects from exposure to radiation in contaminated areas."
 * BBC, February 2019: "It is conclusive that around 5,000 cases of thyroid cancer — most of which were treated and cured — were caused by the contamination. Authorities failed to prevent contaminated milk from being sold in the region; many who were children at the time drank it receiving large doses of radioactive iodine. That was one of the contaminants blasted out of the reactor. Many suspect that the radiation has or will cause other cancers, but the evidence is patchy. ... Amid reports of other health problems — including birth defects — it still is not clear if any can be attributed to radiation."
 * , Shellenberger wrote: "Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested in “Chernobyl.” There was a helicopter crash but it took place six months later and had nothing to do with radiation. One of the helicopter’s blades hit a chain dangling from a construction crane."
 * Aria Bendix, Business Insider: "The helicopter crash in episode two isn't all wrong, but it took place after the initial two weeks of recovery — not, as the episode suggests, in the immediate wake of the explosion. In a statement to Men's Health, Mazin said it was one of the few events that had to be moved around chronologically. "I wanted people to know that this was one of the hazards that these pilots were dealing with — an open reactor. Radiation was flying over it," he told the site.
 * Eliza Bray, Digg: "As long as the irradiated individual has been washed, radiation isn't "contagious" from person-to-person. Oh, and that helicopter crash? Yeah, it never happened — or at least not the way it is depicted in the show. The fate of the people on Pripyat's "Bridge of Death" the night of the Chernobyl accident also remains unknown."
 * The Chernobyl ‘Bridge of Death’: "The fate of the people on Pripyat’s “Bridge of Death” the night of the Chernobyl accident remains unknown. However, the long-circulating claim that all subsequently died was false, as individuals on-site the night of the meltdown and even some who were in the control room for Reactor 4 survived well beyond the disaster. In Chernobyl‘s postscript, the chyron states “it is said” that none survived — that indeed has long been said, but evidence strongly suggests that the opposite is true." -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — diff, Shellenberger is probably right.
 * The Chernobyl Forum (eight UN agencies): "Apart from the dramatic increase in thyroid cancer incidence among those exposed at a young age, there is no clearly demonstrated increase in the incidence of solid cancers or leukaemia due to radiation in the most affected populations. ... Because of the relatively low dose levels to which the populations of the Chernobyl-affected regions were exposed, there is no evidence or any likelihood of observing decreased fertility among males or females in the general population as a direct result of radiation exposure. These doses are also unlikely to have any major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes or delivery complications or the overall health of children." --Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, based on what? As noted above, Shellenberger is an activist with a very specific agenda, not an expert.  I agree with one of my fellow editors that he sees the program through a lens that affects his interpretation of the events as portrayed and the conclusions at the end of the series.  But more important, we can get carried away with over-parsing a dramatization of historical events.  This isn't a documentary, and a certain amount of dramatic license is allowable. I very much doubt the producers pulled those data out of their hats; the impact of radiation from both Chernobyl and Fukajima remain highly controversial, and experts disagree on their long-term effects.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  12:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Charkov's first name and IRL identity
A new unsourced "theory" appeared in this article about the actual identity of Charkov. In fact, the character has no first name in the series and is not identified with any real life person. He is the "embodyment of the KGB" just like the scientist are merged into a single character too.

Of course any source is welcome that proves I'm wrong.

peyerk (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

lead coffins and wives tale, a WP:RSMED?
The article suggested that 27 firefighters plus Ignatenko required special zinc, concrete/lead coffins. I have never come across any reliable sources that corroborate this.

An official, higher quality, reference is required to support that assertion that Ignatenko was dangerously hot in death, Let alone appreciately radioactive at all in his hospital stay, after his decon treatment. We're all radioactive from natural K-40 in our bones. So appreciable readings taken in the hospital after the metaphorical shower, are no where to be found. Or even readings when he was buried. Who even decided for the alleged "zinc/leas coffin"? Boundarylayer (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Seems like a urban legend to me. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Podcast accompanying the show, its writer asserts that the burying of the firemen in this way is researched fact. Generally, he's been quite good at 'fessing up when he's been make-believing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would still need to provide the original source. I have been looking for it for a while and never found anything. I think it was made up. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Blue beam seen by Yuvchenko, no evidence it persisted as long as depicted
Having been the one who went tracking down eye-witness reports of the accident, some years ago after my Island's anti-nuclear politician Adi Roche had photoshopped a daylight Nevada mushroom cloud over the Chernobyl reactor, on her "charity" website, with the motivation that presumedly, if you're a charity then the truth takes second place.

Having been annoyed by this and then gone and researched the true appearance of the accident and then updated the chernobyl disaster wikipedia page with the ionized air grow that plant employee Yuvchenko describe it as appearing like a "blue laser beam flooding up into infinity".

It appears that the creators of the miniseries, having read wikipedia, then took that and never consulted with a physicist on how long this stream of air ionizing, by primarily isotopes of xenon, would have persisted.

The reality is, that it wouldn't have persisted anywhere near as long as the TV show suggests. It was transistory. Neither the 1 young man out on his bike who visited the "bridge of death" report seeing what the show displays, nor would the blue "beam" have from very physical first principles, remained hovering over the reactor, from any understanding of how it was formed.

Just like nuclear night detonations, (a specific article addition, that I also am responsible for), it's largely the very short lived Xenon fission products of fission events, emitting a massive number of beta particles as they decay. These and other similar species, are what causes the ionized air glow. A retired physicist has done considerable work on tracking these xenon isotopes all the way into Russia for his different nuclear forensics explosion investigations, but suffice it to say, they diffuse rapidly and don't remain fixed to the roof of the sky as the show depicts.

Feeling obviously responsible for the popularization of the depiction in the show, It is unfortunate that there aren't any publications that I could find on just how long the blue glow would have remained, though it is complete "artistic license" to have taken Yuvchenko's ground level account from right beneath the reactor and extrapolated that to "a blue laser visible for miles around".

I may have to mail the retired physicist and see if we can put some brackets around how long the blue "beam" would have lingered. Though it's likely not more than one minute and also by the time the firefighters arrived. None of them report seeing this "blue laser beam". So you know, there is that major discrepancy the show's researchers, completely gloss over. You apparently had to be on the "bridge of death" to see it, a make-believe time-warp-bridge that for some reason got white castle bravo coral-reef "bikini snow" dropped onto the fictitious attendees. Instead of the graphite black fallout of Chernobyl. Boundarylayer (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You got me interested and I went over to Castle Bravo to read more of this coral snow. Nothing there. I hope you'll consider expanding that article..? Captainllama (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't really needed, as this egregious popularization of fallout as always white snow in appearance, comes from the infamous castle bravo test, with the fishing boat, the Daigo Fukuryū Maru having experienced it for reportedly a considerable amount of time, that article by the way, goes in probably the most depth on the death ash/"biking snow" phenomenon, it is that article that I also wrote a large part of in 2013 and tagged it as needing further expansion, though I have kept track of popular media depictions of fallout and find they all have gross errors, I mean I'm just someone from Ireland, whereas they have paid researchers, what is their excuse? The all male crew of the vessel the Daigo Fukuryu Maru/lucky dragon 5, would literally come out of the cabin and scoop the bikini snow into bags and lick it, unaware of its dangers, back in 1954, it was white. When they came down with radiation sickness, they renamed it amongst themselves as "death ash".
 * Their experience was what "inspired" Godzilla and the similarly influential On The Beach, two fictions that have clearly had a resounding impact on the collective anti-nuclear-media establishment. As they're still stuck in the mindset that "all fallout is white". When really, it was white in 1954, only because it mostly comprised of pulverized coral reef. At Chernobyl, the acutely dangerous "fallout" from Chernobyl was black, as it was mostly crushed graphite and didn't travel nearly as far. For completeness, the word "fallout" in both cases of use here is reference to the "militarily significant"/acutely dangerous, local fallout, obviously if you think of the iodine and cesium and other similar low boiling point isotopes, that are generated from fission and fusion, they can be carried much greater distances, however in those specific cases, the materials with the low boiling points, they are so finely dispersed as gases essentially(particulate matter) they're completely invisible to the eye and may not actually fall out of the air for hours to days. So it isn't completely accurate to call either fall out until they, you know, actually fall. If you have any more questions, requests to clarify, or otherwise, don't hesitate to blast the klaxon again.

Broadcast on Sky v. HBO
There's quite a little edit squabble going in the article regarding whether the country of first broadcast is the U.S. or is the U.S. and UK concurrently. Although the program premiered in the U.S. on June 6 (6:00 pm Pacific time on HBO East, and 9:00 pm Pacific time on HBO West), it was already June 7 in the UK; it premiered that evening in the UK, roughly 18 hours later (I can't find the exact broadcast time, but given their watershed rules, I'd speculate it was after 9:00 there as well). That leaves us with the question of premiere dates; is it reasonable to say the series began more or less concurrently in the U.S. and the UK? -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  20:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Chernobyl airs Mondays on HBO at 9pm Eastern Time and on Tuesdays on Sky Atlantic in the UK at 9pm' - Daily Express. The article incorrectly stated the time: 'Episodes were broadcast concurrently on HBO and Sky Atlantic, on Monday at 9:00 pm EDT/Tuesday at 2:00 am BST respectively.' Closing credits: 'First publication of this motion picture: United States of America.' I think we need to remove "concurrently". WhiteAngel (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The final episode airs on Sky Atlantic on Tuesday, June 4th at 2AM and later again that evening at 9PM."
 * "Chernobyl airs on Sky Atlantic every Tuesday at 2am and at 9pm."
 * "The fifth and final episode will air at 2am on Tuesday 4 June on Sky Altantic. it will then be repeated at the more civilised time of 9pm that night."
 * There is a five-hour difference between BST and EST. 9am EST is 2am BST. Concurrent. 61.68.205.177 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank you. WhiteAngel (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good deal! Please be sure the use of concurrently is fully cited so we can avoid this confusion again. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  11:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Sky do tend to do what are effectively graveyard premieres of American shows with the "official" premiere being an effective repeat in primetime that evening; I remember they did it for the Lost series finale, and they did it for Game of Thrones too. Chernobyl was just another one of those shows, but whereas GoT was fully owned by HBO, Chernobyl was a split production. Sceptre (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Until I read this discussion the wording of that text of the intro/lead was unclear. I have rephrased it slightly and included a footnote to make it clearer. I know that strictly speaking references are not required in the lead section if the information is explained below but they are not excluded either and since it took the above discussion to clarify the matter for all of you I don't think it is unreasonable to include an explanatory footnote for greater clarity for more casual readers. -- 109.79.74.191 (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

For dramatic purposes
"For dramatic purposes" is a simple, well-known, well-used, and well-understood phrase, widely used in situations just such as here to indicate a fictionalisation intended to further the narrative. An ip editor is repeatedly removing or replacing the phrase. They replaced "purposes" with "effect", thereby changing the meaning, claimed the word "purposes" has no meaning in context, broke the grammar, claimed to be "solving a problem" that does not actually exist, and entirely removed the phrase saying "Removed vague prepositional phrase; reads much more clearly now."

Ignorance is no sin, nobody knows everything and everyone is ignorant of new knowledge right up until they gain that knowledge. Clinging to ignorance, however, is not a good strategy. Despite being reverted with pertinent edit summaries by myself and another, the editor has apparently neglected to perform a simple internet search for the phrase, which would have provided enlightenment. Having done so on their behalf I quickly retrieved the following:


 * the disclaimer at the end might say something like, "This story is based on actual events. In certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites...
 * Rooted in historical fact, but veering from it for dramatic purposes, Henry IV Part 1 also tells the story of...
 * However, the characters, timelines and incidents have been changed for dramatic purposes. In some cases, fictitious characters and incidents...
 * Whereas the real Timur was of Turkic-Mongolian ancestry and belonged to the nobility, for dramatic purposes Marlowe depicts him as a Scythian shepherd who rises to the rank of emperor
 * Most of the events described are in the public domain, others have been included for dramatic purposes, as they say (My italics)
 * 'My 'What I Did Over The Weekend' report is about my hunting a 17,000 pound moose, deep inside Canada. Some or all of this report has been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.'
 * 'Line Of Duty,' for dramatic purposes, tends to create characters whose corruption is balanced on certain ethical conflicts, whereas the majority of corruption in the real world is simply based on greed
 * Shakespeare telescopes and rearranges events for dramatic purposes
 * Viewers are therefore unable to discern actual events from fiction, or what is referred to in the film industry as "changes made to actual stories for dramatic purposes" (My italics)

I hope the editor is glad of new knowledge and will leave the phrase be. Captainllama (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree; it's a perfectly clear, grammatically correct expression. IP's issue is, but at least one change was grammatically incorrect.  Hopefully he/she will join us here if they continue to object.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, they have not, instead continuing to edit war here, deleting my comment on their userpage, and posting unpleasantness on my talk page. Now at WP:ANB. Captainllama (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (user 24.60.1.17 responded on my talk page, I have copied and pasted it here)
 * Captain, the phrase "for dramatic purposes" is meaningless dribble, and your "sources" prove nothing. Read the sentence with and without the phrase, and you will see the difference in clarity and meaning. Please remain civil and respectful of other users. Happy days lie ahead for you.  Bless!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How extraordinary (and ironic) you would imagine I had not considered the passage both with and without the phrase. Have you? I assume not, given your blinkered insistence that removing information imparts more information. Let me help:
 * "The series was exhaustively researched, but some liberties were taken."
 * Why were these liberties taken? Was it perhaps to make it more exciting? (i.e. for dramatic effect?) Or was it for political purposes, to maybe cover for/embarrass the authorities? Perhaps the liberties were taken because the filmmakers ran out of money? Did the director's wife demand to be given a starring role? We don't know. Now try this version:
 * "The series was exhaustively researched, but some liberties were taken for dramatic purposes."
 * Ah, so that's why. To make a complex story more easily digestible. See how that works? Yes? No? Captainllama (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ip has again posted to my user page rather than here, pasted below:
 * Captain - your argument is childish and fails, on every level, to support your position. You seem very angry and I urge you to relax.  Yours is not the only voice on Wikipedia, and other users can and will edit content.  If we had wrongly edited particular facts (dates, places, names) or failed to provide sources for quotes, then we would understand your unbridled anger. However, in this case, we did not edit the facts or sources, we merely redacted an unnecessary and vague phrase: "for dramatic purposes."  You do not control the English language, nor do you control this article.  Take care and God Bless!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked the ip to engage if they still felt they had a point that needed making. Responding by saying "meaningless dribble", "childish", suggesting I was uncivil, saying I was trying to own the article when in fact I reached out and had support from the community whereas they unilaterally edit-warred, calling me angry (lol), falsely calling their single self "we", all without addressing the substantive point, all suggest to me that they are now aware yet strongly antagonistic to admitting even to themself that they were mistaken and do not have a point.

Whether I'm childish or angry or riding a blue giraffe is utterly irrelevant. It's not me that is right or wrong, it's whether the 3-word phrase in the article is right or wrong. The phrase is not "vague", it is not "meaningless dribble", it conveys crucial information, and ad hominem attacks do not constitute good reason for it to be changed or removed. Captainllama (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * We have reviewed the article cited in the aforesaid section and find no mention whatsoever to substantiate the use of the phrase "for dramatic purposes." To be clear, at no time does the reference material claim that liberties were taken for any purpose, let alone dramatic purposes. We invite all editors to review the citation and reply. Respectfully, IP.
 * Interesting exchange: the IP feels the need to reply in first person plural, as though he/she represents a group that may include the entirety of the body of editors on WP less Captainllama.  Talk page comments represent one thing and one thing only:  the views of the editor writing; in this case that would be one IP.  There is no we from his/her side of the argument. There is on the other, however.  At least three editors, Captainllama, Drovethughosts and myself have reverted the removal of a phrase that is both explanatory and fairly innocuous: "for dramatic purposes."  It provides a rationale for the actions of the producers.  You chastise Captainllama for acting as something of a lone wolf, yet it's you who is doing so.  Three editors have supported the inclusion of the phrase, and only you wishes to remove it.  Wikipedia does not effort you license to endlessly continue to remove the phrase; that's called edit warring, and will result in your being blocked, thus denying you editing privileges.
 * I don't find the phrase to be either "meaningless dribble" {sic} or "vague"; rather than being drivel (correct word) the phrase is both meaningful and clear, and clarifies why specific content decisions were made. Those are good reasons to include it.  What does concern me is your need to criticize the quality of Captainllama's arguments.  What you think of them is simply not germaine; we discuss the issue, not the editor.  Please bear that, and our civility practices in mind going forward.
 * Bottom line: the burden is on you to gain consensus from involved editors that the phrase should be removed.  You haven't done this, nor have you engaged in any meaningful discussion until you were forced to do so by Captainllama's complaint that lead to the article being locked.  When there is disagreement about an edit, the article stays at status quo, that is, with the content included in this case.  What you must do, from here, is stop removing the phrase at issue, make a case that concentrates on the edit not criticisms of other editors, and gain the consensus needed to remove the phrase.  Right now, you have nothing like it.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  20:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Good evening Captain and DrMargi! We have reviewed your comments and we reject your arguments. Furthermore, we refuse to be bullied and we resent your accusations and commands (see above). As previously stated, the source material does not claim that liberties were taken for any purpose, dramatic or otherwise. That alone calls for the offending phrase to be redacted. However, we never doubted that the writers employed dramatic license, we simply opposed the phrase 'for dramatic purposes,' which we rightfully contend is meaningless and vague. Given that 'dramatic license' earns a dedicated entry here on Wikipedia, we are sure that the foregoing terminology will satisfy your editorial standards. We thank you for policing Wikipedia and wish you good health. God Bless You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with "but some liberties were taken for dramatic purposes" which best describes. Are you simply arguing for the sake of arguing on here? This back and forth edit warring behavior needs to end, it's highly disruptive. Esuka (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just game playing. The IP claims to be a group of people; I'm not sure I believe it, but regardless, it needs to be brought to the attention of an administrator.  Meanwhile, the whole issue with the phrase is a nonsense by someone who thinks they're painfully clever and is actually just a bore with some silly agenda, which I've brought to the attention of an administrator.  I concur that the original phrasing is straightforward, clear and to the point.  There is no need for a change.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  04:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * IP never claimed "to be a group of people". IP chooses to use nonstandard, nonbinary gender identity, and Captain and DrMargi have repeatedly used IPs elected gender identity to insult us. This behavior constitutes harassment and violates Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, DrMargi's comments (above) directly insult IP, and such behavior also violates Wikipedia policy. Focus on the content of the entry, not the character or gender identity of the editor. We refuse to be bullied and look forward to adjudication by a neutral third party. May the Lord bless you and keep you. We forgive all sins and wish you well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "forgiveness" is of no value, the pronoun games are getting old, you did indeed say you were a group on Captainllama's talk page, and all the nonsense earned you well-deserved a two-week block. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  20:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It is pretty sad but in line with what I've come to expect from group efforts. The IP has correctly noted that there is no factual support yet for what purposes liberties were taken. Adding "for dramatic purposes" is at this point both a filler cliche phrase and unsourced conjecture. -- 2003:C9:4721:1F00:8D4A:2648:3ADA:F0AC (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ukrainian Reception
Why there are nothing about the reception in Ukraine?--Юе Артеміс (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources, add it and se what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The chapter "Historical Accuracy" looks as if it was thoroughly edited by some interested Russians - a lot of criticism (inadequate, in my opinion!) of how Soviet/Russian system and officials are depicted in the show. Of course there are reliable sources about Ukrainian reaction, for example, take a look at Ukrainian version of the article. But what happens if I try to add it here?..
 * (for example, the last source in the chapter, #64, points to an article about reaction of Ukrainian people, however, this article is written by Russian journalist that works for Russian propaganda website ukraina.ru, which specializes on spreading lies about Ukraine.) 95.132.6.242 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

For dramatic purposes (Part II)
Good afternoon to all. Our goal here is very simple: to justify our edits. Please review the content, the sources, and our arguments as follow:

The section on the series' Historical Accuracy includes the clause "but some liberties were taken for dramatic purposes." However, the source material does not claim that the series took any liberties, for any purpose, dramatic or otherwise. Instead, the source material merely argues that the show was exhausitively researched. As written, the current version of this article wrongly attributes the aforesaid phrasing to the source material. Whereas the source material does not support the editor's arguments, and whereas no other editor has cited, with any authority, the reason(s) why certain elements of the show were fictionalized, the claim is speculative, at best. In line with Wikipedia policy, which rejects conjecture and speculation, unsupported phrasing must be edited or deleted.

We agree that elements of the show were "fictionalized" (phrasing quoted from a credible source) and the rest of the aforesaid section exemplifies said fictionalization. The edits that we made, most recently on September 30, 2019, accurately reflect the same.

We invite constructive discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon DrMargi - We see that you reverted our most recent edit |diffs. We think your actions were hasty, argumentative, and disruptive. Please discuss.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Commencing on or about August 19, 2019, and at various times thereafter, we edited the phrase "for dramatic purposes" to "for dramatic effect." This one-word edit, which we made to  support and clarify the article, upset another editor who repeatedly reverted our changes. Later, DrMargi demanded that we seek consensus to justify our position, and, with those demands, DrMargi also repeatedly reverted our edits. Although we believed, and continue to believe, that our edits improved the article, to satisfy DrMargi's demands, we kindly request that any and all interested editors discuss the issue here.
 * NB: In consideration of DrMargi's interest in this issue, we have twice invited said editor to join this discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.1.17 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed in an earlier thread (resulting in your being blocked for being tedious). Edit-warring without a consensus to change the wording is likely to have the same result as before. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just can't figure why this is such a big deal. The standing text is fine, and communicates the idea perfectly well.  This seems to be an exercise in trolling versus actual concern for the quality of the project.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

129.31.235.13 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Historical accuracy section serious POV issues
Historical accuracy section is frankly quite ridiculous so I added POV tag to it. Various criticisms are cherry picked from different sources, but any praise those sources give is ignored, effectively creating appearance of series messing up pretty much everything. Section is also disproportionately long compared to the rest of article, and includes statements of questionable value. Frankly it should be cut down to comments by subject matter experts and direct witnesses, and should include both praise and criticism those sources provide to give a more balanced view of what was accurate and what was not.--Staberinde (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have opinions on these matters, but here is a list of discussion points and sources for criticism. Somewhere, facts should be obtainable. TGCP (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look through some of the sources and I just wanted to say I agree. The negative views really do seem to be cherry picked to the detriment of any praise.
 * Also, I'm not sure I would trust that list of discussion points. It suggests there was no helicopter crash when there indeed was one. There's even footage of it. True, it did not happen the way the miniseries portrays it, but the article implies that there were no crashes at all. Other points seem to be a bit of a straw man argument. I'm not sure that the miniseries ever exactly claims that the efforts of the helicopter pilots, miners, or divers made a difference. The miniseries may have "got the science wrong" because it was accurately portraying the mistaken beliefs of the people at the time.–Noha307 (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the section overall seems to have a negative bias.2601:641:400:CA10:2821:176B:21A8:9F9 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The section partly looks like pro-russian / pro-ukrainian propaganda. Way too much negative feedback, way too many questionable sources. Few of them look neutral on this subject, at that. From my Western European point of view, the series is as accurate as it can get despite some dramatic changes. The section seriously needs an overhaul with more trust-worthy sources. --2003:FA:F717:B300:D545:A055:877D:96E (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Staberinde and most later comments in the thread that this whole section is skewed. The strong negative bias starts already in the Summary, where the last sentence reads "Critics, experts and witnesses have noted historical and factual discrepancies in the show.[4][5]" Both references are wrong. The first one is just a summary of the series; the second is a 'fact-checking' piece, which actually argues the opposite: most facts are accurate. The article needs cleanup - now how do we go about it? Leoseliv (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi I'm new to editing / not confident enough to do it but if someone would like to improve the accuracy section then Robert Gale's four articles in The Cancer Letter are excellent and full of good criticism of the show. The letters are already referenced in the wikipedia article regarding politics, but not so much for the medical effects of radiation by which they really stands out / he is THE expert. Long and short: please read his four articles here https://cancerletter.com/series/chernobyl/ and update if you'd like to. Many thanks.129.31.235.13 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've made an attempt at cleaning up the Historical Accuracy section to restore NPOV and to reduce the focus on insignificant details. I've got a current draft of the section up on my userpage (relevant subpage linked here), but I want to get some more eyes on it before I push this version through to mainspace. Let me know your thoughts! (Or feel free to edit the draft directly, if you'd like.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Update - I've just added my revised version to the main article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename Page to "HBO's Chernobyl"
There are older miniseries from the BBC and a Russian network, as well the Russians plan to make their own in the near future. Secondly, this is generally the name used by Chernobyl Junkies, to distinguish it from the various other series(Most notably "BBC's Chernobyl), and slowly more and more have switched to it.

There is precedent for a title that's extremely common having the name of those responsible before it that was set by "Vacation", or as Wikipedia calls it, "National Lampoongs Vacation."(Despite not doing this for Animal House) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.93.30 (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) Agree: I agree. HBO's Chernobyl has clearly become the vernacular over time, and it removes alot of confusion —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

206.174.216.170 (talk) Agree: HBO's Chernobyl has clearly become the dominant term over time, even when it first came out it was popular and now it's completely dominant. Not to mention it's somewhat misleading and unfair to give "Chernobyl Miniseries" title to HBO's when they weren't the first and won't be the last. — Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree: But to 2020 TV series, as it is also a 'Sky Original.'Halbared (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As a British series, the naming format would be Chernobyl (TV series).Halbared (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl (2020 TV series)?Halbared (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current naming is correct; the title of the series is Chernobyl and it's a miniseries. It would have to be an ongoing TV series to use "(TV series)". Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct in American usage, not in the UK, a series does not have to continue, or have a minimum amount of episode. Sky refer to it as a series.Halbared (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just a British series though, it was a co-production between HBO and Sky. If it were to be moved, it would be "Chernobyl (TV series)" with no year because that is unnecessary disambiguation because there is no other TV series titled "Chernobyl". If you're serious about a page move, you'd have to do properly through WP:RM to gain consensus for the move. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well as you say, its a co-production. I have done a little light searching, but can't see which (if any) side had the majority input.Halbared (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you backup your claim that "miniseries" is not a UK term? On Wikipedia, Category:2020s British television miniseries exists, and UK sources such as BAFTA, The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC and Sky have referred to it as a "miniseries". Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only suppose that the awards companies became more uniform over time. The production companies (ITV, BBC, Sky et al) do not use the term. Sky Go uses the term drama, Iplayer uses similar terms, serial is an older term which is comparable to then American 'miniseries.' It's one of those things that is difficult to find on the web due to the weight of American culture, but I'll try.Halbared (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any real need to rename it. Where as "miniseries" isn't necessarily a word used in describing shows in the UK, we are however familiar to the term. I think with the production being noted as both US and UK and with HBO an American company I feel the existing name is sufficient. I can also see that the user who recommended this is an IP account, and that the first two comments that agreed with the change also appear to be IP accounts which are in fact the same person making two votes. To summarise I don't see any point in renaming this page and if it was to be moved to anything then like stated above "Chernobyl (TV series)" would be the only sensible option.Footballgy (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I probably agree there's no real need. I suppose it might crop up in the future if more programmes are made. I also agree that 'TV series' would probably be the apt choice, according to wiki naming convention. Drovethrughosts; I had heard the term serial drama before wiki, but it was wiki where I learned that the term 'serial' was the original term for what Americans would call 'mini-series.' At Serial (radio and television) and on pages of older British serials/series, which are used interchangeably. I found the definition of serial in Writing for Television: Series, Serials and Soaps (Creative Essentials) by Yvonne Grace; "Series are open ended storylines with usually, but not always, a precinct that the world sits within. Serials have a definite ending; the story has an end point over usually a shorter span of episodes." And the origin here; https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780312235987, the history of the British serial/series (preview section). At the wiki naming convention for series television, the terms 'mini-series' and 'serial' are acknowledged as equivalent, though in British English serial and series are also interchangeable, so it's a rather circular discussion. To be clear though, I wasn't advocating that this page be changed to 'TV serial' if any change was needed or prompted. Sort of related to this, I've looked at a few different (recent) one series programmes, and I was interested to see that Netflix uses the term 'Limited series' (maybe because it's the first true global network and they don't want colloquialism?), and the awards (Globes I think) have adapted their awards to reflect this. The BAFTAs split in 2012 between film and TV, and the new awards created then were named to reflect TV from across the world. That's just an interesting aside though, from my reading.Halbared (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reception in China - WP:UNDUE?
I think having the standalone section on Reception in China give undue weight to this topic. This could be percieved as a WP:POV issue - trying to emphasise some kind of equivalency between the Soviet handling of Chernobyl and China's governance.

As far as I can see there is only the Quartz source discussing this with an Insider article referencing the Quartz article. There is a small amount of coverage in Global Times and CGTN - neither of which are RS. I am in favour of deleting this section - there is the option of merging the text into another part of the reception section but I would favour getting rid of this altogether. Putting this in Talk as I realise this may be a contentious decision and would like some support. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are some more sources:
 * In my opinion, at the very least this deserves a mention someone in the reception section. intforce (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, at the very least this deserves a mention someone in the reception section. intforce (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, at the very least this deserves a mention someone in the reception section. intforce (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Good sources but only passing references. Seeing these I would be ok keeping it but removing its standalone section. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Audience scores
Audience scores are not allowed. This is made clear by MOS:TVRECEPTION. WP:USERGENERATED also makes it clear that user generated content such as web polls from IMDB and Tv.com are not allowed. Ultimately the are not reliable sources WP:RS. Disappointingly this has been in the article for months, and since no one else has removed them (or discussed making an exception based on local consensus) I will remove them. -- 109.76.211.120 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Chernobyl_(miniseries) the TV Ratings should be a good indication that the series was popular with audiences. I think maybe the Table section needs prose explanation context and comparison to make it more easily understandable and informative for casual readers not adept at analysing Nielsen ratings. Resorting to unreliable web polls should not be necessary. -- 109.79.74.191 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Does this count as a Film?
Does Chernobyl count as a film considering it’s under the ‘television miniseries’ umbrella? And if so, can this be considered a ‘film with screenplay by Craig Mazin’? Other shows hVe been listed as such yet this page lacks that distinction. 2001:8003:7818:C601:452F:149:276E:5327 (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename Page to "HBO's Chornobyl"
Chornobyl -- is ukrainian city. It is now and it was in USSR also a part of Ukrainian republik. And it is all about Ukrainian language. There is correct form of spelling of it's name. Why the hell people use russian spelling? How it matched at all, moreover now during the war?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chornobyl,+Kyiv+Oblast,+Ukraine/@51.2752932,30.1868662,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x472a8f00e898abcf:0x14bcceabdbfd5d2c!8m2!3d51.2763027!4d30.2218992!16zL20vMDF0c2s link google maps. OMG

Could you just respect and appreciate ukrainian language and use letter "O" instead of letter "E". I mean, OK we discuss itlater with HBO channel. But in the text we could agree to spell "Chornobyl" 2001:9E8:ADCA:500:D0AD:6431:5A9E:FEA7 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)