 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Zone of alienation. |
any idea what this sentence means?:
"The significant increase in penetration to the Exclusion Zone was even strength of the administrative responsibility for the offense."
I didn't try to fix it because I didn't want to lose whatever meaning the author had. I'm assuming it meant something like "this practice pissed off the cops", but I'm not sure.
ElizaBarrington (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I corrected this sentens. Hopefully it has now become more understandable. (edit by Exclusion-zone ) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
Yes, much better. I can understand it now, and fixed it up a little more. The article is really good now. Could use some references now (external web proof of what's in the article.) ElizaBarrington (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Removed "non-notable" template. Phenomena has been covered in mainstream press: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/international/europe/15chernobyl.html and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/18/nuclear.russia
and in mainstream travel guide site: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelblogs/419/40930/Bleak-o+Tourism%E2%80%A6+Welcome+to+Chernobyl?destId=360912
Suggest changing title of article to "Chernobyl tourism", as this is what it's more often called in international press. ElizaBarrington (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. Thank Eliza for stop deleting of the article. I'm not agree to chaging and deleting this article. Try to explane: The purpose of article is not promoting internet source. 1. Site created by scientists that works inside exclusion zone and try to popularizing truthful knowledge of the Chernobyl zone. People (you) who live far from the Chernobyl exclusion zone not understand the problems. Especially do not understand the problems of social consequences of the disaster. 2. For the argument will show the laws of Ukraine. 3. In Ukraine and Russia, this problem is constantly discussed, but the English-language articles a little and it "superficial". I specifically made a translation into English my investigation. Best wishes from Exclusion Zone - Exclusion-zone 18 June 2010 (UTC)
So what's going to happen here? It this going to be moved, should it be re-written,...w/e? I'd be more than willing to re-write this from a neutral-er point of view...C.C.Peterson (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)