Talk:Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster

Deletion
Deletion?

Someone said this qualifies for original research & should be deleted. Maybe. But the article itself shouldn't be deleted, or it will be created again. If someone think talking about Mulder & Scully relating to Chernobyl is important, well, it certainly fit more in this article than in the main Chernobyl disaster article, which is already lot too long and deals with scientific reports not popular culture. So, deleting this article may not be a good idea after all. Lapaz 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --89.53.136.29 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the prod because this isn't "original research". Original research is when you create new scientific theories (or whatever) and then put it here. Encyclopedic research is when you look something up and mention it here, along with where you found the stuff. This article has sourced stuff. You can look up the movies/TV episodes/whatever and hey, there it is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not original research, it's sourced. It provides valid material not covered in articles Chernobyl or Chernobyl disaster. Would a better title be "Chernobyl in popular culture" ? Mick gold 07:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
There's some issues I'd have with this article: --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Might not have the best possible title. "Popular consciousness"? What the...? Might be better if it were something along the lines of "References to Chernobyl accident in popular fiction" or whatever.
 * Intro is a bit long and rambling.
 * The Bible bit isn't really necessary and could be trimmed; it's already discussed in the Chernobyl article (or somewhere around).

Mick gold 07:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Bible bit is necessary. It's what I was looking for when I came across this article. Quote from the Book of Revelations is not in the articles Chernobyl or Chernobyl disaster

There should be a short text describing the claims in plain english from a scientific approach and not one of people being overly possessed by the notion of the bible's being the absolute truth. --84.160.220.192 21:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the bible bit should be well cleaned up. Bible interpretations are nothing that should be seen in such an article. The bible excerpt might be an interesting text, but it is just a text from a book and should thus not be over-emphasized, as it is now. Just remove the interpretation and rewrite these unbearably biased phrases like "This translation is a matter of extreme controversy for some who wish to discredit the connection but is simply to argue the difference between "red" and "burgundy" when they are interchangeable in the overall context used to describe" and the following bible/fact interpretation. It's not like there was a connection and it's just a matter of finding out how the words are put together, but there is a text in the bible saying something which could be loosely, if at all, reminescent of the disaster. Bloated phrases expressing something like "it is absolutely clear that the bible passage foresees EXACTLY THIS and those wanting to discredit of this fact are arguing about differences like "red" and "burgundy"" should be rewritten, if not removed altogether, as they contradict wikipedia's NPOV by all means.

The Simpsons
Why not include (under popular culture) the episode of the Simpsons where Moe is talking to a woman who says that after Chernobyl her penis fell off SCRA5071 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Expanded name controversy section
I have cut the name controversy bits from the main article on Chernobyl the city/town, and expanded the section in this article. Rationale: When describing the city of Chernobyl, arguments from Christians who think that the Chernobyl nuclear accident had been foretold in Revelations, and who try to equate the name "Chernobyl" with the biblical "Wormwood", in order to justify their POV, are not encyclopedic facts about the city. On the other hand, the controversy about the name and the widespread story about a prophesy fulfilled does have notability. It deserves a separate description as a cultural response to the events at Chernobyl, such as is given here. In Wikipedia terms, an article should not be POV, unless, like this one, it is describing that POV. Readers should be able to inform themselves about the different opinions and interpretations of what happened at Chernobyl, so that they can form their opinions through further research. --Seejyb 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bible interpretation
In my opinion, the biblical interpretation of the Chernobyl desaster is portrayed too positively, i.e. implicating said text from the bible would lead to a strong implication amongst regular bible readers. Yet, in my opinion, the link is very weak, as the "water" aspect and the "falling star" aspect are nowhere to be seen or experienced as direct consequences from the desaster. This is another example of how fundamentalists might want to twist and interpret the bible to suit their needs, but the bible excerpt is too enigmatic to be seen as a "fitting prophecy"--one could as well point out the connotations with atomic bomb testing/warfare, which in term share several of the characteristics the excerpt talks about.

I don't have an idea of how to incorporate this into the article at the moment, but considering wikipedia's NPOV principle, it should be done, as the current stance is unbearable for many enlightened people. 84.58.27.87 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as if it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter. — Book of Revelation 8:10-11 I have a kind of Islamic version of Revelation called The Signs Before The Day Of Judgement by Ibn Kathir, throughout there is very little reference to numbers but:

It will be said, ‘Bring out the people of Hell, ‘ and it will be asked, ‘How many are there?’ – the answer will come: ‘Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand.’ (al-Qalam 68:42)

Then Allah will send a kind of worm in the napes of their necks and they will be killed by it…. (Hadith 5160)

It doesn’t take a lot to see a correlation between the two books but

The falling, like the Angel of Rev 10, descends from Heaven. The lamp, didn’t Jesus say, ‘I am the light & the way?’ Waters, more to do with talking & everyday chit chat, Rev 17:15 Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.” Wormwood, I feel, is more to do with the Number of the Beast (who may turn out to be not so beastly) but I can see why someone would wish to associate Chernobyl with Wormwood.

A quick lesson in numbers & Numerology:

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9 A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z

18	 6  66 WORMWOOD

5 45  4   18

You can ignore any I’s or R’s because they represent the No.9 & hence cancel themselves out. The number 9 being a bit of a magical digit, for when added or subtracted to any number, the total reverts back to the original. For example: 6+9=15, 1+5=6, 34 (3+4=7) –9=25 (2+5=7). When you do somebody’s Numbers, you add the vowels on top (for their Ambition No.) and the consonants underneath (for their Expression No.) then you add them together to get their Personality & Whole Name No.

The whole name number is an addition of the top & bottom lines giving 9 & 9 = 18 = 9 but as the nines negate each other you are left only with what I would consider fair to call a Master Number, 666. So the name Wormwood has the numbers 999 & 666 tied in to its reading.

Let’s just look at the date of Chernobyl a minute, 26/04/1986 2 & 4 = 6 & 6 & 6 = 18 = 9 1 & 8 = 9 & 9, the numbers 666 & 999 are mixed up in this date. As to whether Serge Schmemann and his "prominent Russian writer" knew the above I don’t know but I can see why someone would wish to associate Chernobyl with Wormwood, especially when you consider, according to one source:

“Tiphareth, the ‘Christ-centre’ and ‘Sphere of the Sacrificed Gods,’ is the sixth Sephiroth in the order of emanation, whose mundane chakra is Shemesh, the Sun. The number 6, is therefore considered to be a solar number but it is also considered to be the number of man for he was created on the 6th day. We can see the number 666 as being the number of man raised by the virtue of the trinity to the highest degree: as Revelation tells us it is not only the number of the Beast but also the number ‘of a man.’ The triple six suggests that here all aspects of the triune deity are activated and the three Supernal Sephiroth are now concentrated in Tiphareth. This is the ultimate solar number.”   Qabalah, A Primer. John Bonner.

Bitter, a reference to the Angel and the little Book in Rev 10:9/10

The association of Chernobyl & Wormwood is interesting but the more I look into it the Rev 8:10/11 verse the more I feel it should be associated more with the Number of the Beast Rev 13:18 & the Angel 0f 10:9/10.

This article is incomplete, I haven’t added links, I’m not sure it is all worthy of inclusion but I will back to edit later. Any comments or queries, most welcome but I can expand on all of this.

Roadside Picnic
In the USSR, the Zone of Alienation was equated with the Zone in the Strugatsky brother's "Roadside Picnic, and the Stalker'' by Tarkovsky. I see no mention of this.--MacRusgail 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename
As mentioned above (and proposed by me seperately), I think this should be renamed 'Chernobyl in popular culture', in line with other Wikipedia sections and articles of that name. Any objections? MadMaxDog 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely in favor of that (I think it just involves undoing the redirect and restoring it to its former name). There's something to be said about calling it "Chernobyl disaster in popular culture", I suppose, but Chernobyl, like "Three Mile Island", was never mentioned prior to the disaster associated with the reactor.  Mandsford 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a merge of all the sourced content- since there is 1 sourced claim, the merge would be to Stalker Meme. Active Banana (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How the bloody fuck can crap like this come out of AfD????? Something is really really broken.Active Banana (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The article sould be moved back to the previous title. The renaming is against the discussion that emerged from the AfD.--Sum (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for coming late (I missed the whole affair until it hit the Signpost). "... In popular culture" and "Cultural impact of ..." and are two completely different topics. Right now, the contents match "... in popular culture": an assorted collection of trivia, rightfully bashed at AFD. Rename to "... in popular culture" was the right thing to do. The second approach ("Cultural impact of ..."), a missing subset of Chernobyl disaster effects is far more serious and needs a different level of work. How did it change the lives? How many people are aware of the nuclear peril vs. the day before? How did the displacement of people from some affected areas, and the denial of displacement to others (affected, too) changed the cultural mix in their new or old home regions? etc. Too serious, but worth exploring as a separate topic. Culture isn't just video games. East of Borschov 08:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirected
I have redirected the article to Chernobyl disaster as this article now has nothing which is salvagable. All trivia cruft which was unsourced was removed, which left only one piece of trivia which was sourced. But after reviewing that source, it is not a reliable source, and the assertions which were in the article are not contained in the unreliable source. Hence I have removed it from the article - which leaves nothing left to salvage, hence the redirect. I realise that this article only just survived an AfD, but hopefully this now puts stop to making WP a laughing stock; the last thing we need is such things being advertised in the WP:SIGNPOST. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't quite expect this from the AfD, but at best the article could have been brought up to standard if possible. It clearly is not possible. If any editor thinks that a separate topic is capable of encyclopedic, and properly-sourced treatment, perhaps it could be started in userspace and moved over this redirect when ready. Meanwhile, Support redirection. Rodhull  andemu  15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * support the redirect until some editor takes it upon his/her self to develop a real article from reliable non-primary sources that may exist. Active Banana (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Potential source for that enterprising individual: David R. Marples The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster, chapter 4 Images of Chernobyl - Arts and the Public, pp.125-160
 * Oppose I don't have any use for an "editor who takes it upon his/her self" to do stuff because the outcome of the deletion debate wasn't good enough. That's why they call it a "debate".  I voted to delete the article, other people didn't, the closing administrator didn't close it as a delete, and I can live with the outcome.    Mandsford 18:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the edit at the end of the AfD. Attempting to circumvent its result isn't an appropriate course of action. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned about sources, you are free to tag the article as requiring further verification. However, circumventing the result of the AfD is inappropriate. If you wish to propose a new one, feel free to do so. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I may tag it or I may simply remove unsourced content. You however, MUST provide proper sourcing for content you wish to return. WP:BURDEN Active Banana (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the AfD did not result in keep it resulted in no consensus. Active Banana (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. And the subsequent edits made by you and Russavia are a clear and unambiguious attempt to circumvent the results of that AfD. I have no investment in this article, but I recognise that this is completely inappropriate behaviour. Restoring the article. If you insist on deleting it, you will be reported for your behaviour. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to attempt to circumvent a "no consensus". You have not met your requirements under WP:BURDEN. Active Banana (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are being disingenuous. The result of the proposal to delete was that there was no consensus to delete. Your attempts to circumvent that decision are highly inappropriate, for which I have reported you. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As a long time editor on Wikipedia, I ensure that everything I add to an article, or any article that I write, is meticulously sourced, and sourced to reliable sources. And I mean everything. And I also expect other editors to do the same; if they don't, I see no use for them on the project, as WP:V is one of the key tenents of this project, and as it is one of the key tenents of this project, I have absolutely no hesitation in removing any material that isn't sourced, and I will continue to operate this way. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the WP:BURDEN is on an editor to inserts or restores material to ensure that the material is sourced, and to reliable sources. This is basic policy, and as one editor says at Editor_assistance/Requests, the lack of sourcing inline with WP:V is WP's number one problem. Everything I have done on this article is supported by policy, and instead of attacking myself and other editors, it would be better if WP:BURDEN is met and sources are provided. For what I have done is not deletion, but removed unsourced content, and redirected the empty article to relevant content. Given that unsourced materials has now been removed again (and rightly so), and given that this is now a stub, in which there is nothing in this article which isn't present in the main article, a WP:MERGE is a possibility, until such time as a fully-sourced article is ready to be written by an editor. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 03:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Chernobyl
Chernobyl Movie aka Chernobyl: The Movie and 'Chernobyl is planned Giant Monster Animated (Not in CGI and Not in Stop Motion, same animation used from Powerpuff Girls) movie produced by Bad Robot Productions, Amblin Entertainment, Centropolis Entertainment and Cartoon Network Studios for Warner Bros. Pictures and Cartoon Network, the plot story is about film begins with Distaster in Chenobyl Nuclear Power Plant on 1986 and then after a disaster in 1992, the radiation turns itself into a 1,000,000 foot-tall monster attack the citys in 1997 or 2002, the monsters eating humans, military tries to kill the monster and but not working. It Was Slated to Released on September 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.177.70 (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Caveat for Tarkovsky's Stalker (1979)
As its own article mentions, many people believe that Tarkovsky's film would be about the zone of alienation around Chernobyl that only came about several years after the film. Hence I would think that many have tried to add it to this article before and will continue to ask for its inclusion, so I think we could add a kind of caveat in this article here to the effect that in spite of widerspread conviction, Stalker was released years earlier and has nothing to do with the disaster. Thoughts? --2003:71:4E51:1099:2422:4A6F:480E:1583 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)