Talk:Prypiat, Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ukraine Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Physics 2 misc. 3 "Deafening silence" 4 "Deafening silence" 5 When it will be safe 6 Spelling 7 Legend 8 'Nature reserve' 9 Rewrite 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.1.1 Survey - Support votes 10.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 10.2 Discussion 10.3 The usual simple tests 11 REM Question 12 Explosive Devices? 13 Moved Article From Prypiat, Ukraine To Pripyat, Ukraine, The Correct Spelling 14 Look, If You Read It In Cyrilic, It's Pronounced "Preepyat'", Isn't It? 15 Wording

[edit] Physics

Someone familiar with physics, please fix the following phrase (and possibly the fact itself)

The most dangerous radioactive elements are expected to reach the end of its half-life in 900 years while the rest of the radiation will remain for tens of thousands of years.

As is, it is meaningless. It is phrased so that a layman would think that after half-life it will be safe. But in half-life simply means that the level will decrease only two times. Also, all radiation will remain for thou yrs, only its level will change. Mikkalai 02:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done. — Trilobite (Talk)

[edit] misc.

levels of radiation in the area? Compare to world averages?

Different spelling of Pripyat; some places, it's pripyiat. Should be standardized?

how do open doors to all buildings increase visitor safety?

this article says that chernobyl contains lodging, etc; how come the Chernobyl page says it was abandoned in 1986 in the intro? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.84.57 (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Deafening silence"

Could someone clarify "deafening silence" as it is used?

"the tourism industry was not successful due to a deafening silence"

Its very unclear what this means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.7.207 (talk • contribs)

Done. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Deafening silence"

I took it apon my self to remove the following line which was mentioned above.

"the tourism industry was not successful due to a deafening silence".

I have been to Chernobyl and Pripyat and am unaware of any trouble caused by "deafening silence". I believe it was a rumour started by Elena Filatova to heighten interest in her site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minshullj (talk • contribs)

Done. — Minshullj 06:55, 3 July 2005 (EDT)

[edit] When it will be safe

it is usually safe to enter a highly radioactive site somewhere between 30-50 years after the accident Dudtz 7/25/05 6:28 PM EST

What do you mean as safe ? Very few things in life are perfectly safe. I would say that it would depend greatly on the reason why the site was made radioactive in the first place. For instance the dose rate at the trinity test site declined much faster than the dose rate due to the radium contamination of the notebooks from Marie Curie's radium lab.Cadmium 20:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Jørn Roed it's possible to clean the soil and houses of Pripjat making the city habitable again. Jørn Road is a specialist on radiation effects from Risø National Laboratory and have been a member of several EU, Nordic Council or UN-sponsored projects regarding the Chernobyl plant. The claim was presented in an article in Jyllands Posten dated April 23rd 2006. Teral 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Is it "Prypiat" or "Pripyat"? Even though the title is "Prypiat", several references within this page spell it "Pripyat". This should be made to be consistent at the very least. If one is more correct than the other, do links to this page need to be changed to link to the official page rather than the redirect? Renesis13 20:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...or even, "Pryp'yat" as I have also seen it spelled. -- Renesis13 20:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pryp'yat is the standard Ukrainian-English transliteration. Wikipedia tends not to include soft signs in articles (see Lviv). (I think we should, but that's another matter.) Pripyat is the Russian name. It's in Ukraine, so might as well use the Ukrainian name. The Russian version is included in the first line, but we might consider putting in a second line explicitly stating that the Russian spelling of Pripyat is also common (to aid people in information gathering.) FireWorks 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend

This is a city-phantom... No peoples... No animals... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.235.163 (talk • contribs)

- Actually, there's plenty of animals... (Bobbo9000 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] 'Nature reserve'

If it's safe for wild animals why isn't it safe for humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.41.151 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 July 2006

For one thing, the animals in that area are species which don't live nearly so long as humans; they have less time for diseases such as cancer to develop.

Perhaps more significantly, we don't know that it is safe for them; animals stillborn or born with serious defects will simply not be observed in their true numbers. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Animals can sense a great number of dangers, but radiation isn't one of them. The fact that the city has become overgrown and overrun with nature is simply a bi-product of human evacuation. They may still be suffering greatly from the contamination. D Boland (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This entire article is poorly written. Can someone who is familiar with the subject rewrite it so it reads better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.151.221 (talk • contribs)

I support the above unsigned statement and question. Apart from poor style, the article uses unreferenced information and makes highly contentious deductions, which have not been shown by any scientific investigation. As with much pseudoscience, half truths, irrelevant truths and blatant untruths are mixed in an misguided anti-nuclear mish-mash, superficially authoritative. --Seejyb 18:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] REM Question

A few questions, how much REM (Ronten Equivilant Man) is usualy measured within Pryiat, on avarage wherever you go? How long would you be able to stay unprotected in the town with that amount? What do people usualy use to measure REM? If these questions could be awnsered that would be wonderful. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.176.219 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Explosive Devices?

I removed this, since I've never heard of this theory about explosive devices.

"Pripyat is an abandoned city near the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. It was a city founded for the people who worked at Chernobyl and their families, just a few miles away from the city of Chernobyl. In 1986, when two explosive devices went off near the fourth reactor in the power plant, both of the cities were evacuated because of the lethal amounts of radiation. However unlike the city of Chernobyl, where around 2,000 people still live today, Pripyat is totally abandoned."

Qcubed 20:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Article From Prypiat, Ukraine To Pripyat, Ukraine, The Correct Spelling

It's correctly spelled "Pripyat", in the English pronunciation, not Prypiat. I corrected this by moving the page to the appropriate designation. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a debate, it's simply correct to spell it with 'ipy' not 'ypi'. Done. -- Steven Suttles Stone 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the move as there was no consensus to move the page. There was a Requested move just a couple of sections above, with no consensus to move the page to Pripyat, Ukraine. —dima/talk/ 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Christ, man, I hate to get brief with you, but there's something quite different between "no consensus" and reality. Look on National Geographic's 2006 issue of Chernobyl, look on Pripyat.com, the official town forum, look on the majority of websites and books on the subject, and you'll see that it is the correct way to spell it. Also, before you reverted my move, wouldn't it have been wierd, seeing that the article starts with the words, "Pripyat (Ukrainian: При́п'ять, Prip’jat’; Russian: При́пять, Pripjat;...", and having the article title as Prypiat, Ukraine? This is ridiculous. I wrote half the article, I know quite a bit of the information about the area, and I believe that you all are making a mistake. Hey, if you all don't want to come down to some kind of an agreement about this, then fuck it. I hopefully thought that somebody would step up and do the right thing, and that was me. But you chose to turn it right around. G'Night, -- Steven Suttles Stone 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pripyat.com is in no way an official site of the town. They can say whatever they want, but their not an official government funded site. As I stated above, there was a Requested move just a couple of sections above, with no consensus. to move the article to Pripyat, Ukraine. If you want to move the page, then either propose it at the talk page before moving the article or file a RM.

Anyway, Pripyat is the Russian spelling, and Prypiat/Prypyat is the official Ukrainian spelling of the city. These are two different languages. As the Ukrainian language is official, we should use it instead of the Russian one. —dima/talk/ 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out the large landmark entrance of the city, with the large concrete title named "Прирять". You'll see what I'm talking about. Sure, I know that Pripyat.com is not OFFICIAL, but it's still a forum directly related to those who wrote it. I don't appreciate your go-by-the-book, bureaucratic standards of researching about this situation. The bottom line is, the city was founded in 1970 and it was called Прирять. Here's a direct link to a picture of the Pripyat Sign: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41604000/jpg/_41604484_nob_sign.jpg. Copy and paste it into your broser address tab. This argument is starting to get stupid. We're not talking about Ukraine or the Ukrainian language here, wer'e talking about an abandoned city which was founded before the separation of the Soviet Union. So we will go by history, not by modern world's languages. G'Night, -- Steven Suttles Stone 03:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look, If You Read It In Cyrilic, It's Pronounced "Preepyat'", Isn't It?

I've studied quite a bit of Russian, including the Cyrilic lettering of the alphabet. I don't understand that Pripyat is not appropriate as a correct spelling method because the ending isn't pronounced "iat", it's pronounced correctly as "yat". Remember, this is the correct way to spell it in Russian: Припять. Directly translated, it is pronounced "Preepyat'". Check your sources, opposers in the requested move survey, you are all mistaken. Try checking in again once you've got your Cyrilic alphabet straightened out. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In RUSSIAN, yes it's Pripyat (Прирять). In UKRAINIAN, its Prypiat/Prypyat (Прип'ять). These are two different languages, both Slavic however. Ukrainian и is transliterated as y. Russian и is transliterated as i. This is why the naming difference results. —dima/talk/ 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about a city founded before the separation of the Soviet Union. We will go by the way it was originally written. How's that? -- Steven Suttles Stone 03:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Apart from some very well-known toponyms which have established names in English (e.g., Kiev, the Dnieper, Crimea, Carpathian Mountains), Ukrainian place names in Wikipedia are transliterated from Ukrainian according to the official method for geographic names. Relevant Wikipedia guidelines are at WP:NAME#Ukrainian names and WP:CYR#Ukrainian, and details of the standards are in Romanization of Ukrainian. Look in a few recent atlases, I believe you will find that they transliterate from Ukrainian, too, although possibly using a different romanization method.

The date of the city's establishment is irrelevant.

PS: in terms of pronunciation, I don't see any difference between "-piat" and "-pyat". However, note that we are talking about transliteration (romanization) here, so the pronunciation doesn't enter into the question at hand. We use Prypiat for the title (and Pryp”iat’, with the apostrophes, for full transliteration) because it conforms to the Ukrainian National standard. —Michael Z. 2007-09-15 19:06 Z

OK, I'll make it as simple as it can be. "-piat" and "-pyat" are significantly different in terms of pronunciation. "-piat" sounds like "pee-aht" while the correct way, or "-pyat" is pronounced as "pi-yat". Get to know the Cyrilic alphabet, it can help. Report back to me about your observations. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 06:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it simpler yet. Pronunciation is irrelevant.

This article's title is transliterated according to Wikipedia's guidelines, with consensus support of most participating editors. Unless you can come up with some unanticipated new evidence supporting a change, this topic is moot. —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 15:01 Z

OK, look, I'm out of this discussion. I am a "most supporting editor" of this article. I originally wrote a little more than half of the article myself before many other edits were made to the page. I know exactly what I'm talking about. So if you're going to throw everything that I said back in my face, then that's your problem. I feel really sorry for the Wikipedia Guidelines that we cannot even name an article the way it's meant to be written. Just remember, many other articles linking to "Prypiat, Ukraine" still link to "Pripyat, Ukraine". So if you want to give it the solitary name, I'd suggest you all to change the link names too. So I will give up on my steps to name this article correctly. Just to let you know out there, there's gonna be people coming onto this site to read information, and I mean it to be correct. Ah well, salute to the bureaucratic and go-by-the-book moderators that have prevented me from further changing the name of this article. Good Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so hurt. I'm sorry if I come across as curt, or rude.

But I just don't understand where things like "the way it was meant to be written" come from. Припять is pronounced differently in Russian and Ukrainian, but neither pronunciation is at issue here. Wikipedia's official transliteration for Russian would make it Pripyat, and for Ukrainian Prypiat.

It happens to be a Ukrainian city. In Ukraine the official language is now Ukrainian, and there is an official transliteration system used to communicate place names internationally. Place names and their official spellings change over time. We don't have Stalingrad and Voroshilovgrad any more, nor Danzig nor New Amsterdam in the modern world. You haven't provided any solid reasons that I can see why this should not follow the same pattern as other Ukrainian place names. —Michael Z. 2007-09-17 00:09 Z

Allright, bud, everything's fine. I don't feel hurt, I'm just aggravated. It's just the fact that it's most commonly known as Pripyat, and most commonly labeled as that name on sources and subjects all across the world. Back in earlier school years, when the Chernobyl Disaster came into the curriculum, my mentor added the word, "Pripyat, Ukraine" on the board, and we all knew it that way. If you look at the "move article survey", and compare how many Google Search results there were between Pripyat and Prypiat, you'll see what I mean. There are 302,000 results for Pripyat, and 25,600 results for Prypiat. It's just far more commonly known in the West as Pripyat, Ukraine. Even news reports use the name correctly. I'm just pointing out the fact that if other people, even in formal situations are using the "-pyat" ending, why shouldn't a popular online encyclopedia also have it that way? That's my question that hasn't been answered so far. G'Night, -- Steven Suttles Stone 04:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we now keep this conversation going here? -- Steven Suttles Stone 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's base the discussion on a neutral middle ground. When you make statements like "news reports use the name correctly", it quite sounds like you have already made up your mind what is "correct", and anything else is necessarily incorrect. Don't see much point in discussion then.

One might just as easily argue that Prypiat is the only correct name, since this is the romanized spelling according to official Ukrainian government policy, transliterated from the only official language of the country, and that your preferred spelling based on Russian is obsolete.

I think it's a mistake to say that either is strictly incorrect. They have both been perfectly acceptable in different contexts. I'm saying that Prypiat is more consistent with the naming of Ukrainian toponyms in Wikipedia.

In Wikipedia, the consensus has been to use traditional English spelling for very well known names (Kiev, Odessa, Crimea), and the official transliteration for others (Lviv, Kharkiv, Luhansk). One exception is Chernobyl, whose Russian version is strongly ingrained and widely used in western media and literature, but Pripyat is not nearly as well-known. —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 00:31 Z

Allright, I guess I'm just going to have to go into more depth, then. I'm sure very much that anybody could argue against anything if they felt like it. All I'm saying is, formal news reports and more famous magazines such as National Geographic, 2006, titled "Chernobyl - 20 Years Later" or near it, use the spelling that I believe is correct in their context. I know that many newcomers to the subject would think, hey, we should go by the Ukrainian way of spelling it and so forth, but if you know well about it, and understand the historical interests about the town, you'd reconsider. It's not a Ukrainian city, it's a Soviet city, lost in time, and that's why people like to preserve the name, Pripyat. They want the area remembered, not by modern reality, but as a memoir of the Soviet Union during a historical tragedy. Take a look at what I've just said. It's not just about the surface of the subject, you've got to dig deep into it to pull out what's really right.

Now I can't keep trying to come to the top with all of this backfiring of ideas from "newbies" on the subject. I know what your saying, Michael, but this point is well arguable. The survey was voted, while I was out of reach of my computer, and those of whom voted were I'm sure complete newbies on the subject. I'm sure they had no thought about detail whatsoever, and just traced the surface. "Hmm, Pripyat, Ukraine, a Ukrainian city, huh? Well, we should keep it in the Ukrainian spelling." The people who wrote and edited the article, myself writing more than half and others adding on, understand what we're talking about. It's not about vague popularity or just because I think it's correct. It's about history, and detail. You've got to know these things before you write or name an article. You see what I'm saying? Please report back to me, and add other opinions into this discussion if anybody interested will. G'Night, -- Steven Suttles Stone 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're saying at all. Who are these people you refer to? Who, exactly, wants "the area remembered, not by modern reality, but as a memoir of the Soviet Union during a historical tragedy", apart from journalists who use the same Russian transcription from 1986 and have no interest in adding the issue of language and nationhood to their articles? Saying this is about "history, and detail" is colourful, but rather bereft of the basic elements of an argument.

On a tangent, I think your statements about "newbies" are misplaced. I've been aware of the disaster at Chornobyl since it hit the news in 1986. And I'm having trouble finding the part of the article's history showing that you wrote more than half of it. —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 14:59 Z

This makes interesting reading, and the most frustrating thing (apart from the fact that in your own ways you are both right!) is that the Wikipedia guidelines don't help us here. But here's one plea: let's try to come up with a consistent final solution for former Soviet states which is generic enough (in principle) that we can propose adding to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), which currently covers only Russia (amongst the major former Soviet states).

On the specific of this present city, I'd recommend taking a look (if you can bear to) at the archived discussions regarding Kosovo. It's actually called Kosovës (transliterated to Kosova) by a considerable majority of the inhabitants, but because it's still technically in Serbia, and the UN recognises that, Wikipedia uses the transliteration from the (Cyrillic) Serb name, Kosovo. In other words, what the local people want, use, or have historical basis for, is simply not what we use. The official name, in terms of the official state language, is what has been decided on by considerable Wikipedia consensus. So in this present case, to be consistent and respectful of that consensus, we need to use the Ukrainian, not the Soviet, spelling. – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think creating such a guideline requires a survey of how such place names are dealt with throughout Wikipedia, and writing a summary. If any discrepancies are found, then we could resolve them in the appropriate forum. Lots of work. —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 14:59 Z

First of all, Michael, don't you ever stand me up as a dirty liar. I wrote a majority of the article, and people added on. That is the truth. That point is irrelevant to this discussion, and if you do not want to be held against for Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks, I'd suggest you to drop that attitude immediately. This is a discussion, and I mean it to be without any backfires from other users, especially towards me. I also do not expect you to start searching for evidence to humiliate me for every single thing I say. So stop. I don't want to hear it.

Maybe a new guideline is necessary to preserve most formal names of articles as well as locations, historical figures, and others, but I'm sure the majority of the people here in the discussion do not have the same idea as I do. So we're going to have to take a different approach here, without any verbal gestures to humiliate others. Keep it calm here.

Also, remember that over 25 articles linking to Prypiat, Ukraine, still have the links spelled Pripyat, Ukraine, so I'd suggest you all to standardize something here, instead of creating a big brawl of an argument. So I suggest someone to do something here. Thanks. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the point is irrelevant, then why did you mention it? I just commented, quite calmly, that your statement is not supported by the facts available to me. Hardly a personal attack, but if you can point out your edits in the article history, I will gladly apologize.

I still don't understand what you meant earlier, or by the need for "a new guideline is necessary to preserve most formal names of articles...".

As to the links, Wikipedia is inconsistent. Maybe some of them are appropriate in their context, maybe some others should be corrected. (It looks to me that only about 15 out of 125 links are in question here.) That's how it goes around here, and I don't see any big brawls happening over this. —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 21:20 Z

Look, I'm out of this. I don't want any more to have to do with this tangent of a conversation. I thought something could be worked out, I thought that other opinions would be helpful, but I've got nothing. I do think a new guideline for Wikipedia is necessary to preserve names of historical locations, figures, etcetera. It would prevent the use of modernization in names of titles in articles. But ah well, who cares now. I know exactly how things go around here, so I've had enough of this ongoing nonsense. Perhaps the problem is, Michael, that you aren't trying to understand, so you keep coming back to me to clarify my points numerous times. As for my article edits and writing, I think you can figure that out yourself without having to humiliate me with any more of this in-depth investigation. No need to apologize, just mind your profile, and who you are here in this encyclopedia. Will someone please write a final response to this thread, and release me from this ridiculous ongoing discussion that has only wasted my time and humiliated me. Thank you, and Good Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 22:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian name Pripyat is "preserved" in the first line of the article. You seem to be suggesting that there be guidelines to prevent Wikipedia article titles from changing to keeping pace with prevailing usage in the English language, to serve "as a memoir". I doubt there would be much support for that, and it seems to be diametrically opposed to one of the most basic naming convention on using common names. I could be wrong, and you are certainly welcome to propose it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 01:00 Z

I'd like to thank you, Michael, and others, for accompanying me throughout this discussion. I'm beginning to understand the other views here. I'm just going to have to live with what we've got here, and adjust with what's right on the Wikipedia guidelines. I don't really feel like escalating this situation into any more detail, so I will not take this issue to the Wikipedia Talk: Naming Conventions forum. Once Again, Thanks, And Good Night, -- Steven Suttles Stone 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help here, the official name under Soviet rule was Pripyat. Like most places in Ukraine, the official name was changed under the Ukrainian government's Ukrainisation programme to Prypiat. In away it's similar to what's happened to Beijing / Peking or Mumbai / Bombay. Wikipedia policy is generally to use the new name in these circumstances, though invariably there are long heated discussions before these are finally accepted. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Re: After Chernobyl, first section, last sentence:

"Residents were only allowed to take away a suitcase full of documents, books and clothes that were not contaminated." Isn't it better to just write "Residents were only allowed to take away a suitcase full of documents, books and clothes."?

Or did they really check for non-contamination here? Greswik (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC) !