Talk:Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion

message: There's some issues I'd have with this article:
* 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).
--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title: The Simpsons

message: 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)
thread_title: Expanded name controversy section

message: 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)
thread_title: Bible interpretation

message: 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)
thread_title: Roadside Picnic

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed rename

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Rodhullandemu 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And the AfD did not result in keep it resulted in no consensus. Active Banana (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Redirected

message: '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)
thread_title:  The Chernobyl 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Caveat for Tarkovsky's ''Stalker'' (1979)