Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

Page vandalized

Hey guys, this page has clearly been vandalized... could someone roll it back to the previous version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.192.119 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumors section removed

I removed the "Rumors" section because it contained poorly sourced, controversial information about the suspects. momoricks (make my day) 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would actually argue that it should be put back. It's not sourced any worse than the rest of the article. As a matter of fact most of the information comes directly from the legal defense team of the three men, mainly from Igor Sayenko, a suspect's father who also represents him in court. Perhaps the title should be 'Alternative Theories' or something, so the word 'rumors' doesn't put people off. I'll try to reword it better and put it back in.

Remember, this is all coming from Ukraine, a country where both the legal system and the media is very different from the US, legal proceedings aren't very transparent, and the authorities are often incompetent, corrupt, or both. The case is also very fresh and hugely sensationalized. So you just can't expect the same level of information as you would with a similar case in a 1st world country. Flyboy Will (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the sourcing of this information to the rest of the article is not a valid argument. WP:BLP has a strict policy regarding controversial article content and required sources. Furthermore, if the quality of available information is lower than that in Western countries, the information should not be added to the article. momoricks (make my day) 04:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I made a new section with lots more information on defense strategies that incorporated most of the old 'Rumors' content. The section turned out to be the biggest in the article, but I don't want to trim it, nor do I feel like expanding the rest at the moment. Hopefully its relative weight won't be misleading in the meantime. Flyboy Will (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Flyboy Will. This looks much better. momoricks (make my day) 04:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Murder Video Inappropriate?

User 67.160.163.49 removed the link to the murder video with the following reason: This is disgusting, it does not need to be seen at all. I'm not personally aware of any policies that state that graphic content should not be linked to on wikipedia, especially when it's directly related to the subject matter. But I guess if there is wider consensus, I can be convinced that it doesn't belong here. Flyboy Will (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the video should be linked here - especially as it is easy for children to get to see this video. It's immoral and does no benefit to anybody. Though there is a warning about the contents many will be lured by their curiosity. I watched only a few seconds and the pictures still linger on my mind.

It's not only a question of mere policies - mentioning the video should do, a short description of its contents might be enough for information. I'm German and my English is not good enough to express everything what I think about it. But I do hope that this link will be deleted soon. --Eileanna (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link as a clear violation of WP:RS and WP:BLP (see as well the discussion of BLP on WP:EL). This isn't even close to borderline. A link to a graphic murder video on a porn site? No.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On a lighter note

Dnepropetrovsk of Dnipropetrovsk? The former goes to a redirect to the latter. There has been a discussion on that page and it remains as Dnipropetrovsk so perhaps this article should be moved to Dnipropetrovsk maniacs?--Mongreilf (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

9,080 google hits for "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs". 1 google hit for "Dnipropetrovsk maniacs".

For the same reasons I believe the main city article should also be Dne- and not Dnipropetrovsk, but dealing with Ukrainian nationalists is simply not worth the effort, since they care about this a thousand times more than anyone else. In the only Ukrainian vs Russian spelling debate to gather any wider attention, Kiev vs Kyiv, common sense won and the article here is still Kiev, not Kyiv. A Pyrrhic victory. I don't think anybody cared to get bogged down in the debate again in order to propagate the consensus down to other pages and change Dnepropetrovsk and all the others according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English). They had all been changed to Ukrainian spelling by a single user before the Kiev consensus was reached.

So let's not get all Ukrocentric on this particular article that has so little to do with politics. Everyone knows these guys as Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, so why muddy the waters? Flyboy Will (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Consistency in naming is good and encyclopaedic, but if it costs editors' time and hair then wikipedia is best served focusing efforts elsewhere. Are the Norwegians as obsessed with the Danish influence in the spellings of their locations, I wonder?--Mongreilf (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The most irritating thing is that we're not even talking about different names or different pronunciation. It's just different spelling, or rather different transliteration for words that sound pretty much the same in both languages. Any Russian pronounces 'Dnepropetrovsk' as "dnee-propetrovsk", same as any Ukrainian. The Russian spelling just got set earlier. Interestingly enough, while there's a wide-scale assault on English-language spelling, say the Russians continue to spell everything the way they want. Apparently the way to gain international attention for the plight of Ukrainians under Russian yoke is to make all toponyms even more difficult to read. Flyboy Will (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of fun history from the early days of Wikipedia, I remember it being a pretty standard joke at meetups for some person to say "Danzig!" and someone else to yell "Gdansk!" and then pretend to want to choke each other. Naming battles are always a pain in the neck because, as noted above, some people care 1,000 times more than anyone else, even (or perhaps especially) if they are going against the global consensus of English speakers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the source of the 3 Guys One Hammer meme that was being bandied around on Encyclopedia Dramatica?

His name is Sergei Yatzenko

I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised.--Possiblereasons (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.11.231 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Video

All right, since the graphic version was inappropriate, I found what could be an alternative for a section that otherwise has no sources remaining.

Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs Courtroom Video

It's a clip from Ukrainian TV, and the English text that accompanies it has a full transcript of the murder video, while the clip itself does not contain any part of it. The clip does have some still photographs taken by the suspects, but if they were good enough for Ukrainian national TV, I suppose they should be fine for wikipedia? I just want that entire section to be completely unsourced, and save for the video itself, there appears to be very little discussion of it. So could this work? Flyboy Will (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It works for me. (1) This is actually informative for English speakers since there is an English transcript (2) While it contains some difficult imagery, as you note, it does so in the context of showing the viewer enough to understand the situation, rather than simply being there for shock value (3) the website doesn't have graphic porn ads on it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

English language news coverage

A bit of a puzzle here. With a couple of exceptions, every citation currently given in the article is in Russian. This is not ideal for the English language Wikipedia. Has anyone been able to find some mainstream Western media coverage in English, because I could not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A word of caution. There is a website called dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com. This site purports to be a serious look at the crimes, but a WHOIS lookup shows that it is owned by a company called Godaddy.com, Inc. [1]. This is the same company that owns the shock site promoting the video. The BBC, CNN, New York Times, Telegraph and Guardian have no coverage of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Godaddy is a domain registrar. Probably what you are looking at is that it is being held in their name on behalf of someone who prefer to keep their privacy. This may or may not be the same company that registered the domain of the shock site, which is held in a similar way. In any event, I would suggest that a domain held "in trust" in that way is a factor (not definitive, but a factor) in suggesting a lack of reliability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying that 21 people were murdered brutally in the Ukraine in June and July 2007, the defendants are on trial, and no WP:RS in the English language has heard about it? This BBC news story about serial killer Serhiy Tkach in Dnepropetrovsk is reliably sourced, but the Maniacs story is linked to the Internet video in December 2008.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For me personally, I hadn't thought to question whether the whole thing might be a hoax from the start. I only concerned myself so far with the question of the appropriateness of the link to a graphic video. I recommend that someone ask over at Ukranian wikipedia. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jimbo. At the risk of being counterproductive, don't go looking for this video on the Internet. You have been warned.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat picture

The cat picture is currently removed, and I am not going to be the one to put it back. Is there a WP:CONSENSUS not to use it in the article? By the way, I know that WP:NOTCENSORED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research issues

Time for some plain speaking. Wikipedia's position on this article is rapidly becoming untenable. The question that must now be on everyone's lips is this: Does the Western media have an agreed news embargo on reporting the details of this court case in Ukraine? Either the Western media has fallen asleep, or they are missing one of the key criminal trials of the 21st century, or the whole thing is a hoax. Wikipedia cannot continue to defend this article without at least some reliable sourcing from the Western media. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The silence of the Western media is indeed slightly surprising, but the sources in Russian are numerous and detailed. This is clearly big news in the Ukraine ( see e.g. this).L'omo del batocio (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't need "western" news coverage to be notable. — Realist² 18:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but I don't think that's Ian's point. Ian's point is that it would be nice to get confirmation from someone we trust in Ukranian Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to find an admin there who speaks English and who can tell us "yeah this is more or less right, dunno why the English press is ignoring it" or "yow, never heard of it, sounds like a hoax to me" or something else like "yeah, there is a murder trial, but it's not even remotely like your article says" or... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we could do with some translating from someone trusted in the community. — Realist² 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Google translate is pretty good these days, and about 90% of translated text is easily readable. You can dump source links into it and get at least the gist of things. I'll be very glad to hear from a Russian or a Ukrainian admin, of course, but in the meantime you don't have to wait. Plus there is an English-language news release from UNIAN, the official Ukrainian news agency, right at the top of the article sources, which hopefully is enough to convince people that this is at least not an outright hoax.Flyboy Will (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What next for the article?

As Judge Louis Brandeis observed:

“ Sunlight is the best disinfectant. ”

If the reports coming out of the Ukraine are true, there would be considerable problems with allowing widespread coverage in the Western media. Apart from the main source of the video, it is available on several torrent websites, making a complete ban almost impossible. This means that any attempt at banning access to the alleged murder video might provoke the Streisand effect, with people searching for it out of curiosity. There is also the ongoing issue of why a phishing website created by Godaddy.com, Inc. is available at www.dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com. This domain name was registered on 5 December 2008, and the whole website is as phoney as a nine dollar bill. Why are they doing this? Also, given the speed with which this story is going around the Internet message boards, how long can the Western media hold out? This is becoming worrying.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the 1966 film Blowup by Michelangelo Antonioni? Here we are re-enacting it in the age of the Internet. Is the murder video real, or is it a hoax? No comments from me, but here is the stream info for the technically minded:

Format  : Flash Video File size  : 39.7 MiB Duration  : 7mn 48s Overall bit rate  : 710 Kbps

Video Format  : H.263 Duration  : 7mn 48s Width  : 320 pixels Height  : 240 pixels Display aspect ratio  : 4/3 Frame rate  : 30.000 fps

Audio Format  : ADPCM Format settings, Firm  : ShockWave Duration  : 7mn 48s Channel(s)  : 2 channels Sampling rate  : 22.05 KHz Resolution  : 16 bits

It is a fairly standard Flash video, except for the audio track, which is in an unusual format, ADPCM. Normally it would be MP3.

As for the content of the video, there is (as has been pointed out) a transcript at [2]. However, one point of note: most of the dialogue is apparently in Russian, but at 4:03 in the video, does the alleged victim say in English "Oh my God?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to calm down about the whole "omg the west aint covering it" thing. Other continents exist. — Realist² 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Realist2, this is not a routine story like "MJ converts to Islam". Suppose that the Moors Murders had a full colour video recording on the Internet. This is the situation that we are facing here. Believe me, I have tried to stay calm, but having seen the video in full, I dread to think how this could pan out in the mainstream media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So could you explain your concerns fully? Because there are limited English language sources you think it might be all fake? You have BLP concerns? What are these specifically? Do you believe the court case is a fake? — Realist² 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It did occur to me at one point. I asked User:Rodhullandemu for his views, as he is a qualified lawyer. His reply is here. To repeat myself, why is there no coverage of this in the West's mainstream media? It appears to be a WP:RS story for the Russian language news media. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You believe there is a wide international conspiracy to create fake murders? That for a month last year a major city with population of 1.1 million was bombarded with fake news of fake murders, and then news of fake arrests and fake trials spread to other major news media including national TV? And the murder video is some fancy Ukrainian special effects, and all the victim's families are actors, and courtroom news coverage takes place on a set? Is the entire country of Ukraine in on it, or is it simply their entire law enforcement community? Did the actors playing the murderers consent to being kept in a secret location throughout and after the trial, if they get convicted, in order not to be recognized by an unsuspecting member of the population? And this entire charade was set up by godaddy.com for ad revenue? WHOA. Flyboy Will (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick note about the supposed godaddy angle. That domain isn't registered BY godaddy. It's registered THROUGH godaddy. There are millions of other domains that are registered through godaddy, since godaddy is, after all, an internet domain registrar. The dnepropetrovskmaniacs domain was also registered using DomainsByProxy.com, which is a service that hides the identity of the actual person who registered it. That's also very common on the internet, especially with shock news sites, or simply with people who want to avoid spam. Also, people routinely register a domain name for a hot news item for some ad revenue. If there is a wide international conspiracy, godaddy is likely not a part of it. Flyboy Will (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no more of a conspiracy theorist than the next person. However, in the last five minutes, I ascertained that the alleged murder video is still available at its main addresss, and requires no password or confirmation of age. Why have the authorities not removed it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're asking questions that cannot possibly be answered. No one can possibly know why somebody is NOT doing something. Flyboy Will (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are still some issues surrounding how the murder video is being hosted. Most web hosts have Terms of service that prohibit all the usual things like racism and offensive material. Someone, somewhere must know that they are hosting a website with explicit videos of beheadings and actual murders. It's not the sort of thing that you would be likely to miss. The operators of the shock site in question need the co-operation of a web host, since most of them would not touch this sort of material with a ten foot pole. The murder video is almost certainly hosted in the United States, since the IP address of the site is in New Jersey. This would make it hosted under US law, and any attempt to remove it would have to be within US law.

Also, It is interesting that someone registered the domain name www.dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com on 5 December 2008, just before the current storm of publicity began. The website itself is a very half-hearted affair, and consists mainly of an appeal for information. It will be worth watching this website to see how it develops.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, where do you see Jersey? They are actually hosted by Media Temple and the IP is in California, where MT's servers are. MT is a pretty big host who hosts the likes of Starbucks and VW, but I can't find any terms of service on their site. Anyway, why is that site of any relevance to this article? Some guy somewhere set it up and barely put anything on it - so what? I don't get it. Flyboy Will (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP lookup that I did gave New Jersey. However, this is not a big deal, the most important thing is that the video is hosted under US law. As for www.dnepropetrovskmaniacs.com, this is not a big deal at the moment either. At a guess, it may have been someone trying to cash in on a current news story. This sort of thing often happens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm a little puzzled by some of the implied context of this discussion. 'why have the authorities not removed it'; 'This would make it hosted under US law, and any attempt to remove it would have to be within US law'; '[..]the video is hosted under US law'. are you suggesting, or under the impression, that it's against the law in the US to host offensive material? it most certainly isn't. there are a few webhosts out there who take an 'in your face' attitude towards the first amendment to the US constitution - that being that offensive material, racist material, shocking material, etc, is protected expression. which it is. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

So, let's discuss this, shall we? I'm really amazed at the fact that this is even brought up, but perhaps I am biased, being guy who created the page. The reasons for proposed deletion is "Excessive reliance on foreign language news sources".

First of all, I'm not aware of any policies that state that foreign news sources are less reliable than English-language ones. There's nothing of the sort listed anywhere on WP:DP or on WP:RS. If User Ianmacm believes that non-English language sources are inherently unreliable, this is a much larger policy issue that needs to be brought up globally.

Second of all, the foreign (Russian) language coverage of these murders is extensive, and includes series of ongoing articles in major reliable print publications as well as on national TV. It's simply preposterous that something like this wouldn't be good enough for Wikipedia. The amount of news coverage something receives in foreign locales is a completely different discussion. The fact that this is not covered by the BBC perhaps an interesting sidenote, but I can't possibly see how the lack of English news coverage can threaten the very existence of the article.

I believe the proposed deletion should be withdrawn, and we should all use this experience to learn that the world is a big place, people in it have as much right to their opinions regardless of the language they speak, and they do not require anointment by an English speaker in order to prove their existence. Flyboy Will (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Flyboy, all due respect to Ianmacn (who I strongly respect), this is not fake at all. Maybe in due course more English language sources will report on it. There is no ban on foreign language sources and rightfully so. Wikipedia already pushes a strong US/UK bias in it's coverage, this would set a dangerous precedent. — Realist² 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of lying. Could someone with a good grasp of Russian/Ukrainian translate the citations into English? That would be a step forward.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And this step forward can only be taken under the treat of article deletion?Flyboy Will (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS A large amount of your personal doubts can be settled by http://translate.google.com/ without having to add templates to wikipedia pages. Flyboy Will (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but there was a bit of a ploy here. There is zero (and I mean zero) coverage of this in the Western media. Never in my life have I encountered this situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That is perhaps because you have never in your life dealt with international news. I travel to Russia and Ukraine extensively for work, and major stories that get covered over here routinely receive no coverage over there and vice versa. None of us can possibly know what's happening in the CNN newsroom and how they find and select news stories to report on. There is extensive Russian-language coverage. If you believe all Russian-language sources to be unreliable, start a discussion on WP:RS about it, not here. Flyboy Will (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not the doubting Thomas that you all think. Now let's concentrate on the main question: why has the Western media been struck dumb?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So what do you foresee happening in this hypothetical discussion, which can't possibly be based on anything other than conjecture, which will lead to this article being deleted? Flyboy Will (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll withdraw the deletion template if it makes everyone happy. However, please could someone:

a) Translate the citations into English. b) Find just one reference to this affair in the mainstream Western media. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(What I was writing at time of edit conflict) We don't know why "the Western media [have] been struck dumb"? Maybe it's not an important question anyway. If your only reason for deletion is "the west don't care about it", I ask that you remove this deletion proposal and take it up at a broader venue. Maybe you should suggest a broader policy change at RS and NOTABILITY? If you have larger concerns, that the video and trial were faked (in some political conspiracy? or doctored by some website?) then, well, I dunno what to do...? ;/ — Realist² 20:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This could also have something to do with the suspects' names. There's about a million ways to transliterate them into English. They could be Sayenko, Saenko, Saiencko; Hanzha, Ganzha, Hanja, Ganja; Suprunyuck, Suprunjuck, Suprunuk, Supruniuk, Supruniuck, etc etc etc. There's also Dnepropetrovsk vs Dnipropetrovsk. It could be that whatever scant coverage exists isn't picked up by "Dnepropetrovsk Sayenko Hanzha Suprunyuck" on google.

The wide coverage gap does seem to exist for other local murderers. This guy Serhiy Tkach, another Ukrainian serial killer, only seems to have a couple of short articles in major Western sources, all after his conviction. Nothing on CNN or any other US sources about him at all. Russian-language media has thousands upon thousands of news articles throughout the case. Flyboy Will (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

this does not look like a hoax to me

But it would still be comforting to get some more eyeballs on our article, people who can read the original language sources and make sure we aren't falling for some hype.

I can at least imagine a situation like this: (a) somewhat routine murder case is being reported in Ukranian (b) serious English media ignores it because it is not that interesting (c) unserious English media, shock sites, blogs, etc., concoct a hyped up version of events that make the story sound really super wild and interesting (d) wikipedia relies on the English reports, though cautiously, mainly because (e) we can see that there really is something going on in Ukranian/Russian sources. That is to say, not a total hoax, but a certain type of bias.

I have no idea if this is the case or not, which is why I'm wondering if we can find some help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's forget the hoax thing, this was never my intention. I was and still am worried by the lack of coverage in the mainstream Western media. Do The BBC and CNN really think that this is unimportant? It would be nice to have some WP:RS from the mainstream media in the West, but it seems that they are all on holiday at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here from this article on The Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article5483397.ece

Just to put things into perspective. Serhiy Tkach is a Ukrainian serial cop who committed over 100 murders (compared to 21 for these guys). During his murder spree, over 10 other people were convicted for the murders, Tchikatilo-style. Tkach was arrested in 2005, and his trial ended with conviction just a few days ago, December 23, 2008. There is exactly one article on him on BBC, post-conviction. There are 0 articles on him on CNN, Fox, NBC, MSNBC, or any other US sources I checked. Russian-language coverage numbers over 20,000 articles. There is a huge coverage gap, just like here, which is probably explained by the fact that major English language sources simply aren't that interested in Ukrainian serial killers. Inaction can be explained by a million different things, and the answer most often has to do with apathy.Flyboy Will (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, no arguments here, but why is the alleged murder video still readily available on The***.com? If true, this is the sickest thing ever posted on the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I found something posted by a MySpace user which is interesting. It's a still image taken from the clip which shows the side of the victim's face. The caption for the photo reads: "Do you see a mask? Look at the ear". It does look a little strange, as if a false face has been laid on top of the real one, and the overlap is visible. If you'd like to have a look, here's the link, but be warned that it shows a close-up of the victim's face post-hammering, and is very gruesome:

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=126170570&albumID=511566&imageID=33031127 [WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE]

If you want to see the anomaly without having to look at the man's battered face, I've cropped the photo so that you can only see the undamaged area. Here is the image:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5438/dnepropfx5.png

As per the instruction in the photo caption, look at where the ear joins the rest of the face. What do you chaps think? PCLM (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, it is hard to make assessments of the video by looking at stills taken from it. The moving pictures leave little room for doubt that it is genuine, and the court ruled that it was genuine despite the objections of the accuseds' lawyers. The debate has moved on, and the claim that the video is a hoax in some way is no longer credible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily believe this is a hoax, I do feel that it's not proven to be genuine by the fact that the court ruled it to be so. If it's fake, then it stands to reason that the media coverage would be fake, too. But like I said, I don't see any reason (beyond the interesting still I mentioned) to doubt its authenticity. PCLM (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Oh my God"?

Is it imagination, or does the alleged hammer attack victim say "Oh my God" at 4:03 in the video? The video appears to have been shot on a mobile phone and has poor audio and video quality. Here is a link to the audio in question. Note: NO graphic content, this is a few seconds of MP3 audio only. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't bear to listen to it, so I'll just say that maybe it is what he says. English expressions are quite common in many languages, due to the influence of American movies. I'm not sure "Oh my God" would rise to that level, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like "о парни нахуй" ("oh parnee nahooy"), or "oh guys, fuck". 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we may never know the answer to this due to the audio quality, but it appears that the victim says something at 4:03. Although this is a difficult area, it was raised since there is no mention of it in other news reports of the transcript. It would not make much sense for the victim to say something in English, but it does sound vaguely like "Oh my God."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harrowing...very harrowing. So much so that your "no graphic content" warning is a little strange! haha. The shudder in his voice (no doubt due to the adrenaline and fear he is saturated with) is especially unsettling. I listened to it a few times, and I don't think he's saying "oh my god". Maybe he is and his smashed face and mouth full of blood just makes it sound different, but it sounds like something else to me, something Russian.

You mentioned that there are news reports of the transcript; is this transcript in English, and can you provide a link if it is? The only one I've come across thus far has been cobbled together by someone who saw the clip, and it's very incomplete. PCLM (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is still unclear if it is the voice of the victim in the video at 4:03, although it seems to be. The English language transcript of the video on LiveLeak at [3] is passable, although it may be incomplete. There is a version of the murder video with subtitles, but in line with Jimbo's wishes it will not be given here. Much of the audio in the video is muffled and indecipherable, and no transcript that I have seen addresses what is said at 4:03.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw links to the subtitled version on a few gore forums; a novel idea to say the least! But I'm wondering if the subtitles are just lifted directly from the transcript and if they can therefore be considered any more informative. I don't fancy comparing the two to find out :P

Actually, I just listened to the clip again, and I don't think it's the victim talking after all. Just as the sentence is finishing you can hear the beginnings of a low humming, groaning sound, which is the sound the victim makes for most of the clip. And the shuddering I mentioned sounds more like giddiness; adrenaline-fuelled laughter. Also, the second killer's voice seems to respond to whatever is said. It sounds like a one-word response - can you translate it? Phonetically, it sounds like "she-im". PCLM (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The subtitled version of the video is more detailed that the LiveLeak transcript, but it may have interpreted some of the muffled speech. I can't provide a translation due to a lack of the required language skills. It has to be restated that it is speculative that the victim speaks at 4:03, although it does not appear to be the voice of Suprunyuck or Sayenko, both of which are heard in the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Supposed Co-Conspirator(s)?

I'm really torn whether this information should be added. I've found some extensive in depth information about the supposed other co-conspirators in the case, most of it coming from the defense. The persona of one Danila Kozlov is mentioned in depth. Supposedly his confession is a part of the case. He was supposedly the first person to be arrested, and the first to confess. His confession was then supposedly used to "break" the other suspects, who were told they were implicated anyway, but a confession could help with sentencing. Supposedly Kozlov's confession implicates him at least as an accessory to murder in some of the cases; however he was never charged and eventually released. There's a lot of details there which could potentially fill a whole separate section, generously linked to sources no less reliable than the rest of the article, but I'm really unsure whether it would be of help or of detriment to the article.

On one hand, this is all coming from the desperate defense, and has the whiff of OJ-style "real killers". On the other hand, Ukrainian law enforcement being what it is, the theory is not completely out of realm of possibility, especially as this angle is actually used in court by defence, and the prosecution isn't jumping up and saying "well excuse me which Danla Kozlov, we've never arrested or questioned anybody by that name". My gut feeling is that this should not be in the main article, but it does raise some very interesting questions, especially in the light of Russian and Ukrainian law enforcement routinely arresting and convicting the wrong people in serial murder cases, confessions and everything. Flyboy Will (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a long way to go on this, as the trial is still in progress. Do you know roughly how long it might last? Most of the crimes seem to have been committed by two or three people, but other conspirators cannot be ruled out. If this is mentioned, it should be stressed that it is more speculative than some aspects of the case. As you point out, the defense at a trial often gets desperate and makes wild allegations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The trial will last until March at least, and then who knows. It's been delayed time and again. Still, don't expect much transparency post-trial either. There's no freedom of information act or anything like it in the Ukraine. Court sessions are closed. Journalists are occasionally allowed in for 10 minutes and then escorted out. Transcripts are sealed. Both sides, defense and prosecution, give interviews, which is our only window into the case. And so if there are any co-conspirators, the only way we'll know with any certainty is if they start killing again and get caught. Or somebody gets a book deal, goes down there and starts greasing palms in order to take a peak at the records. Otherwise, it'll forever remain "defense claims, prosecution denies". Flyboy Will (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "Unidentified Male" in the Video?

Is the man shown in the video clip an additional murder victim on top of the 21 already mentioned, or is his name one of the 21 but no one knows which? PCLM (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but supposedly this video and one other (which was not leaked to my knowledge) were used as prosecution evidence in the trial, so I'm guessing they must be tied to actual murders with which these guys are tied. It's hard to imagine a situation where with evidence like this, a victim wouldn't be identified and the murderers wouldn't be charged.

PS Information on victims in this case is really hard to come by, since the Ukrainian court system is so non-transparent. In all the sources I've scoured for this article, I haven't seen a single complete list of victims. Could be this guy's name was never mentioned in print. Flyboy Will (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PPS If that might be of any help, the names of the male victims murdered by the side of the road are: 07/07, A. Sidak (by a hotel resort); 11/07, Nikolay Pshenichko (near village of Peschanka); 14/07, unknown male (highway to Zapadnyi); and on 16/07, Sergey Yatzenko (near the village of Taromskoye). Plus maybe more that weren't listed. These guys picked up passengers and murdered them, so apparently a lot of murders fit what is seen on the video. Flyboy Will (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point(s) Flyboy. It's so frustrating when you see something this horrific and there's scant information to accompany it. But as I understand it the next session of the trial begins in March, so we'll just have to sit tight.

Incidentally, I saw on some gore forum that someone had taken a still image from the video showing the killer's face (without showing any violence) and placed it next to a photograph of the accused for comparison; would that be a good idea for the article? Maybe if it were slotted in next to the paragraph which discusses the father (and lawyer) of one of the accused stating that they are "obviously" different people. PCLM (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

'gore forums' are free to speculate. wikipedia is not. Anastrophe (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no speculation involved :\ besides, the latest edit to the article identifies the victim and confirms that the killer's face has been identified as that of the accused. Job done. PCLM (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

um, you weren't discussing the victim in your penultimate response, neither was i. please reread what you wrote immediately above my comment. adding a photograph of the accused next to a still from the videos would constitute wikipedia proposing that readers speculate about the identity. that wouldn't be appropriate, particularly since this falls within BLP guidelines. Anastrophe (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We were talking about the same issue - I just pointed out that there is no speculation, because the clip is being used as evidence, and has been used to identify the killer(s) - the courts believe the killer in the video is indeed the accused. The comparison photo idea was specifically in response to the father of one of the accused saying there is no resemblance; it was his speculation that I felt was worth addressing (he even claimed that the clip was digitally altered to implicate his son, a claim the court wasn't convinced by). The fact that the idea for the comparison came from a gore forum doesn't really matter, either. PCLM (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a comparison like that would break any rules, especially since it doesn't require the article to definitely agree with the court findings. Since the murder video is in the public domain, due to being evidence in the court case, and there are public domain photographs of the suspects as well, one could easily make a comparison image and simply caption it "screenshot from the murder video (left), and Igor Suprunyuck (right)". I won't be the one to do it though. I don't want to have to go through the video again looking for a clear enough view of the killer. Flyboy Will (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard that! I'm not skipping through that vid again either. The gore forum I mentioned has the comparison, but it's lumped in with a dozen or so other images taken from the clip, and I have no desire to see those again. I'm sure IanMacM could provide the required image, his nerves of steel clearly allowed him to examine the audio closely enough. What say you, Ian? ;) PCLM (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This news article from the Ukrainian media refers directly to the video. It shows a screenshot from 4:41 in the video, which can also be seen at [4] (Note: NO graphic content). This is allegedly Suprunyuck. The attacker can also be seen washing his hands at 7:08 in the video [5] (again, NO graphic content). The reality is that the average person would not be able to say on the basis of these screenshots that Suprunyuck was the person in the video. What matters is that the mobile phone video appears to have been found on the computers of the accused, and their voices can also be heard throughout the video.

These screenshots could be used in the article, as the link to the website concerned has been obscured in order to comply with Jimbo's wishes on this matter. However, the images have not been added to the article pending further discussion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, darn it, I had to go and look at it again. It does look grainy in a still, but it's actually pretty obvious in motion since details register a little better over multiple frames. Even in the still the features are clear enough to point to Suprunyuck in virtually any lineup. However I don't know if the still, grainy as it is, is good enough to make a strong impact on the article.Flyboy Will (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No article on Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia

There is no article about this on the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedia yet. travb (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't big wiki's are they, I imagine they edit over here instead. — Realist² 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

true, just a tad bit worried about this being a hoax. travb (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine for help with this article. There is still a need for broader sourcing and analysis here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proofreading needed

Although the English is generally very good, the article does need some proofreading. I have already fixed a few minor linguistic and comprehension issues. 85.94.246.241 (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The proofreading should be done by people who can speak the languages. Online translations are not recommended.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed?

I never actually liked the title, or rather the word "maniacs" in it.

The Russian word маньяк, (man'yak), is obviously a cognate of the English maniac, but it doesn't have the same meaning anymore. In Russian, any serial killer is a man'yak, i.e. in a formation such as "Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs" the word is used in the same way as "killer" in English epithets like "Green river killer" or the "Zodiac Killer". In Russian the epithet doesn't have any connotations of mania or insanity. It simply means "Dnepropetrovsk Killers". It's kind of boring, yes, but what can you do with a media culture having little to work with, and having even less imagination when it is presented with something. Their serial killers are often simply called "location"+"man'yak", when they get an epithet at all.

So how about we move the page to Dnepropetrovsk Killers or Dnepropetrovsk Murders or some other alternative? The word "maniac" just really bothers me every time I see it. It's not by any means an accepted English-language epithet so far, since besides a few forums and this article, the trio received little to no mainstream attention. I'd hate to be responsible for further propagating a sloppy translation. Flyboy Will (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs" is the closest transliteration of the Cyrillic Днепропетровские Маньяки. Whether this translates accurately into English as "Dnepropetrovsk maniacs" is not for me to say as a non-Russian language expert. Personally, I would be tempted to keep it at the moment, since it has been used in English language news coverage, on message boards etc. This is the easiest phrase for people to find the article with at the moment. Renaming it would require a redirect, which could be done, but I vote to keep the current title for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to showcase my point about Russian-language usage, here's a google translation of a discussion forum on a Russian serial killers site: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.serial-killers.ru%2Fserial-killers-news-f3.html&sl=ru&tl=en. Everybody is a "maniac".Flyboy Will (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More on the alleged fourth co-conspirator

I'm going to add just a little blurb about this to the article, but I think this interview is of enough general interest, since it's not coming from the defense but rather from a victim's relative, and affirms at least some of the defense theories. From [6]

A mysterious blonde man

"This is when a certain blonde man named Kozlov shows up," says a victim's sister Tatiana (Elena Shram's sister). "Sayenko stated during questioning that they (Suprunyuck, Hanzha and himself) had a friend. I don't remember, Danila or Dmitriy Kozlov. They met on the internet. He sold a handgun to Suprunyuck. Later on the suspects would visit him and tell him about their "adventures". I've read all this in court evidence." Tatiana stated. On that night [when her sister was killed], according to Tatiana, the suspects just left Kozlov's house and chanced upon Elena Shram.

"And where's that Kozlov, I asked investigator Bogdan Vlasenko. "What do you mean where? At home." "But he knew about the murders!" "He didn't murder anyone himself," the investigator cut me off"

"And they forgot all about him at the trial. My lawyer tried to bring it up, but the judge told him to sit down. And Sayenko changed his testimony"

""We thought about it better, and it was only the three of us after all", he said after a year"

"I'm convinced that Kozlov was involved in my sister's murder. Lots of money is tied up in this case."Flyboy Will (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentencing is to Take Place on 10th February

According to the following article, the trial has finished and the sentencing will commence on the 10th. The prosecution are asking for life imprisonment for the two murderers and 14 years for their accomplice who took part in robberies and animal cruelty (but who left the group before the murder spree began):

http://smi.dp.ua/dnepropetrovsk/prigovor-dnepropetrovskim-manyakam-vynesut-10-fevralya-121.html

Not sure how reliable this source is, but there it is if anyone wants to incorporate it into the article. I've noticed in the sources at the bottom of the article that there's another link to a different webpage which seems to confirm the sentencing date:

http://www.kp.ua/daily/240109/70346/

PCLM (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, there have been reports that the sentencing will be on 10 February, but since there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL about this, the main text of the article does not contain it. The date could come and go with nothing happening, so it is best to adopt a "wait and see" approach. There is another source for the February 10 date here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has been updated to reflect the latest developments. There is a new video showing the defendants at [7].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

After the sentencing, I had expected some coverage in the Western media, but according to Google News, all of the coverage is still coming from the local media in Ukraine and Russia. A barnstar goes to the first person to find an account of the trial and verdict in the Western media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Some success, with this news story from Le Figaro, one of the leading French newspapers. However, the offer of a barnstar for English language coverage still stands.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is some English language coverage in this edition of the Arab Times. However, it is an English translation of the Agence France-Presse story cited in the article at [8]. The lack of Western media coverage of this case remains one of its greatest puzzles. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the authorities don't want Western media to know about this, I'm not sure it's just an idea. --TardisShell (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to believe in outright conspiracy theories when there is news agency and television news material available, but it is surprising that the mainstream Western media has not picked up on this case. Here is a story from CNN about six people killed in a bus crash in Ukraine recently, but CNN has nothing about this case. Researching the article has been difficult, because most Wikipedians are not experts on the Ukrainian media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Motive

The motive for the crimes is an important factor, and the exact phrase used by the judge was "болезненное самоутверждение". This has been translated in the article as "morbid self-affirmation." The other part of the motive comes from the French newspaper article which notes " la pauvreté de leur monde émotionnel, l'absence d'intérêt pour les gens et de repères moraux" ("the poverty of their emotional world, and their absence of interest in people and moral standards"). These are the best translations that I could come up with, but any suggestions for improvements are welcome.

Russian and Ukrainian language version of article

There is now a Russian language version of the article at [9], which has been proposed for deletion. This is the latest brush that the article has had with notability issues. Compared to the huge media coverage of the Josef Fritzl case, it is a mystery why this case has so little reporting by comparison.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• The nomination for deletion of the Russian language version of the article was withdrawn, see [10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is now also a Ukrainian language version of the article at [11]. It says that there was widespread discussion of the case in the world press, which as English language speakers know was not the case. The Ukrainian article cites Caitlin Moran's article about the video in The Times at [12], but this is the only mainstream piece from the English language media that has been found so far.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood it in Ukrainian. It doesn't claim there was a widespread discussion, merely that it was discussed in the world press. Le Figaro is also a French mainstream newspaper that published a piece about it[13], there is a German language source in the article and a piece in Russia Today[14]. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good featured article to use on April fools day

I think this would be a good article to feature on April Fools Day, anyone agree? --Roller-frompacket (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Back in December 2008/January 2009, there were a lot of comments going round the message boards saying that this was a hoax. Things have moved on since then, and there is plenty of reliable sourcing from the Russian language media, although a baffling lack of coverage from the English language media. If you think that this is a hoax, then prove it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a parody of Jack the Ripper, some say the video is actually a clip from a forthcomming movie. I think it was a prank, I've seen the video several times and it's acting, you can tell. --Roller-frompacket (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Like many people, I had some doubts about this at first (here is a message board with a good discussion of the case). It is tempting to see the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs as some sort of rerun of The Blair Witch Project, cunningly put together as part of a viral marketing campaign. The trouble with this interpretation is the large amount of mainstream media coverage in the Ukraine and Russia. Unless they have all lied, this is a true story. The judge ruled that the murder video was genuine at the trial, although Suprunyuck and Sayenko are now appealing on the basis that the photographs and videos are somehow wrong. Like everyone else, I would love to know why CNN and the BBC have written nothing about this case, when Josef Fritzl and the Winnenden school shooting have received more than ample coverage. This is why people keep questioning the veracity of the case, although there is plenty to read in reliable sources from the Russian language media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think Roller-frompacket is talking nonsence, I have never read or head any accusations or statements that claim this to be any sort of 'movie' or 'sick joke'.

As for the coverage I don't beleive this to be a case of "If it isn't western, it's not news" as the BBC & FOX have made several reports of other incidents in Ukraine such as the Sknyliv airshow disaster or the 2009 Russia/Ukraine gas dispute. Where as these may be more major events it still remains a mystery why hardly any Western news outlets have little to say about this. Is it too violent? Too upsetting? Too grim? Not relevant? --TardisShell (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of the language used on the message boards to describe the murder video is strong, but one comment saying that the video is "a mindfuck" is accurate. Anyone who watches the video risks permanent psychological scars. This may be why the Western media has held off on the case, but there is no proof of this. It is hard to believe that no Western journalist has heard of the case, but the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines regardless of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How were Suprunyuck and Sayenko apprehended?

For a while now, I have wanted to expand the description of how Suprunyuck and Sayenko were apprehended by the police, but have had some sourcing and translation issues. The Europe Express article Unusual Killers is at [15]. Apparently, Suprunyuck and Sayenko went to a pawnbroker's shop with one of the victims' mobile phones, hoping to sell it for 150 hryvnia (about US $20). They turned on the phone in the pawnbroker's shop to make a call, and were caught shortly afterwards near the cash register. (this is because mobile phones will reveal their location to a network when they log on). The Russian for all of this is Только после этого МВД наконец решилось обнародовать информацию о преступниках. И буквально на следующий день позвонили из ломбарда: жадный Супрунюк пошел сдавать мобильный телефон жертвы за 150 гривен и взял с собой Саенко. Их арестовали прямо у кассы. Is this accurate, or is there a better translation? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3Guys1Hammer

A while back, I had a think about whether the article should mention 3Guys1Hammer. It is important as an internet meme based on the case, and it is how many people got to hear about it. The downside is that it contains some clips from the video, and names the site where the full video can be found. As a compromise solution, the link to 3Guys1Hammer is not given, but it is now mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that it wasn't mentioned in the article so I put it in there, I know it may seem rather tasteless addressing a murder of an innocent man as an Internet meme but unfortunately that's how people like to treat it reguardless of how sick they think it is. I think this article should stay well away from links to the video or any other related material from these guys save for the courtroom news clip.

I don't see any problem with giving out the title of the video, if people really want to see the video then they can go see it for themselves, besides even if the title wasn't there the description of the video still is and they could just search into google something like "Hammer murder" etc.

--TardisShell (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Scum

I think these sickos deserve to die a horrible, grim and sufferble death --86.12.213.180 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)