Talk:Capture of Chernobyl

Can you fix the section about radioactive spike?

I added a little text in the article about radioactive spike near the power plant. "After the invasion of the zone, there was a spike in radioactive activity." However, i am new to Wikipedia and i don't know how to properly cite something to something else.

Chicken4War (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Result:
Not moved per consensus garnered below to keep this title for now. Closure requested at WP:CR <permalink>. Please keep in mind when making and participating in this type of renaming that a hyphen between such as "Russo" and "Ukrainian" is incorrect and should be an endash (–) instead per MOS:ENDASH. Thanks and kudos to all editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Editing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 16:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Chernobyl → Chernobyl in the Russo-Ukrainian War – The battle was actually quite uneventful. The real WP:NOTE of this in the grander scheme is the nuclear contamination issue ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 20:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "Russian takeover of Chernobyl", "Russian occupation of Chernobyl" or "Russian administration of Chernobyl" could be more precise titles. Super Ψ Dro 22:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Media has this more or less as the "Battle of Chernobyl". Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A much better descriptive name would be to call this a battle; it is widely reported that there was armed fighting at the location between Ukraine and Russia, with Russia having a goal (at least in part) to capture the power plant. But that wasn't its only goal; the goal was to advance towards Kyiv as well and to sure up the area north of the city. I don't think the proposed name is more natural than the current one, nor is it more precise. The real WP:NOTE of this in the grander scheme is the nuclear contamination issue seems to be missing the point of the battle's strategic implications as it pertains to attacking the city of Kyiv. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reasons described above. Dangeredwolf (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Elijahandskip -- HurricaneEdgar 00:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose We have a bloody Battle of Brisbane page over a fist fight between American and Australian troops, no reason to move this page unless another battle occurs at Chernobyl which becomes far more impactful on the human memory. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Someone above says that the media is "more or less" using the term battle of Chernobyl, but I can find no uses of the term "Battle of Chernobyl" in this context whatsoever outside of Wikipedia. Even casual usage only seems to use it to refer to the 1986 Chernobyl incident. In contrast, the Battle of Brisbane (which someone cited above) is widely described as such in sources, And as a descriptive title it is a bad choice because it carries the implicit implication that scholarly or media breakdowns of the conflict have identified this as a significant battle, which simply isn't true; it's inappropriate for us to declare any place where fighting has taken place the "battle of X" on our own. This is a situation where Wikipedia should be careful in terms of wording in order to follow the sources, not trying to establish its own structure for describing the conflict. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • BBC is referring to the situation as a battle, as have the Associated Press, Al Jazeera. That we're adding the descriptor "of Chernobyl" doesn't really seem to be anything other than applying an appropriate descriptive title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support something other than Battle of Chernobyl until RS uses that name. As Aquillion noted, "battle of x" conveys a sense of historical significance that we can't be the ones to confer. Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mhawk10's statement. Fijipedia (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article does not so much relate to Chornobyl (by the way, it should be Chornobyl not Chernobyl) now but what happened during the battle, so the proposed name is foolish. Doc Dimaus (talk) 4:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per the majority. Utkarsh555 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I generally agree with the sentiment of being careful about calling any engagement a battle. I actually considered "Occupation of Chernobyl" as different title when creating the article. However, this engagement (according to Ukrainian sources there was a fight with victims, which drove me away from a simple "occupation") clearly opened up the way towards Kyiv, having serious implications for the greater conflict on both sides, making it a battle in my book. Teddet123 (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is best for now. If things change in sources in the future we can reassess then. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as per prior arguments. I believe the current title befits the events thus far; it can be change if later circumstances warrant it. Tisnec (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — Newsweek calls this a battle. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as per Tisnec. Heyhayley (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing more to add. Slightly ridiculous nomination. Buttons0603 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given by rReagan007.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support, and plea to oppose voters to make arguments based on policy. I'm a bit confused by the opposes here, which all reference each other in a house of cards resting on the idea of this being backed up by reliable sources... Except the people citing those sources acknowledge that no one but us is actually using the term "Battle of Chernobyl". This is pure original research, and I think the real reason people are defending it is because it sounds cool. "Battle of X" is not an appropriate descriptive title, as readers expect a "Battle of X" article to be about something called the Battle of X, not a military engagement that took place in X that no one calls "Battle of X". There's a huge difference between sources saying "a battle happened in Chernobyl" and us saying "The Battle of Chernobyl was a military conflict ..." A descriptive title would be something like Russian capture of Chernobyl. I'd be open to really any title other than the current one. I'd prefer the example I gave or one of the ones Super Dro gave to the nominator's proposed title, but that title is still a step up from this completely fabricated title. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Implying that none of the above votes are based in policy makes little sense here; there are multiple users who have cited specific sources that describe the situation as a battle. The most natural title for a battle at a particular location is to call it "Battle of [location]". The current title is more concise than the proposed new title as well; the proposed title is quite a mouthful. Furthermore, the title of the article indicating that a battle took place is going to be much more recognizable than the proposed new title—people who know about the event know that there was a battle at Chernobyl and this is better than a title which generally refers to a location with the qualifier that it's in a particular war. The current title is also much more consistent with how other battles in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are currently titled and the current title is precise: the title unambiguously identifies the battle that occurred at Chernobyl and distinguishes the battle from other subjects. As a result, I think that the current title meets the WP:CRITERIA on its own and is superior to the proposed title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per the above, who expressed my concerns more eloquently than I could. —AFreshStart (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: For the most part, I believe that use of the word "Battle" in the title is warrented, as there was a direct conflict between Ukrainian and Russian forces, large enough to at least creat need for an artillery bombardment. I understand the apprehention, butdo not think that the importance of the opening of the road to Kiev should be downplayed. That being said, I am not directly opposed to changing the title. Capture of Chernobyl would be a fine title, I believe. --Panzerfaust613 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Panzerfaust613
• Comment: I believe both names are inappropriate. Chernobyl is a city some distance from the CNPP, but still inside the Exclusion Zone. The title should either reflect the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant or the Exclusion Zone as a whole, depending on where fighting occurred or what Russia's strategic aims here were (a consensus would need to be established), unless the city of Chernobyl was somehow the focal point. I know that colloquially Chernobyl is a catch-all name for everything to do with the CNPP and the Zone, but that should be addressed in the article, not the title. Kylesenior (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Changing the name will break the convention to use "Battle of X" for a place name in the List of military engagements during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and other battle of X like Battle of Okhtyrka has no uses of the term "Battle of Okhtyrka" in this context whatsoever outside of Wikipedia but still no one debated about that. AnimMouse (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support change to "Russian takeover of Chernobyl" or maybe "Russian seizure of Chernobyl". The only article I found referring to a "battle" was this one in | Newsweek. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep  This was an act – a battle, offensive, advance, occupation, or whatever you want to call it – and the current title makes the nature of the subject clearer to a potential reader, supporting the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness. The proposed form sounds like a thematic subject, is more appropriate, and is currently used for, a bunch of lists and listicles with in, of, or during the war. —Michael Z. 22:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support eventually As was mentioned, the actual battle will be a very small part of the developments, but as of yet the content of the article does not reflect that. Feel free to add information regarding the administration and risks, if there's enough information about the subject the move will happen more naturally. Changing the name of an article in hopes that the content will change is less likely to pss.--TZubiri (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Feel free to include any information relating to chernobyl during the 2022 invasion, once the content of the article becomes settled, it will become more clear what to name it. Content first, name second. --TZubiri (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have reopened this discussion, as the close was not done properly and was done by an editor who had !voted. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete this article now.

Please do not let wikipedia turn into a propoganda tool by mythologizing and branding current events for warmongers. 100.37.11.148 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

No valid reasons to delete the article mentioned. Fijipedia (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you believe that the article should be deleted (as per our deletion policy), then feel free to nominate the article for deletion. I don't think the rationale above is in line with a reason that the policy gives for deletion, however. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see reason to delete this article, as I don't feel thatf what is disscussed is contriversial in any way. As per your comment on the "mythologizing and branding current events for warmongers," I would lke to hear more about your stance and hear your reasoning--Panzerfaust613 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Panzerfaust613

Is the name "Battle of Chernobyl" even sourced?

I don't see any sources using that phrase, and it can't be considered purely descriptive either, so it feels like inappropriate editorializing. "Battle *for*/*at* Chernobyl" would be a little better, "Russian capture/seizure of Chernobyl" even more so, as this is more descriptive and is the language used by some of the sources for what I can see. If "Battle of Chernobyl" is an established WP:COMMONNAME per sources I am not seeing then fine, but it does feel a little like mythologizing the war for Wikipedia editors to unilaterally start naming every engagement "Battle of X". 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)