Talk:Dyatlov Pass incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 25 July 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
High traffic

On 2008-02-27, Dyatlov Pass incident was linked from Reddit, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


Name Discrepancy[edit]

The third name on the list in the Background section reads 'Ludmila', yet the caption of the picture in the same section calls her 'Lyudmila'. Which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Both; different transliterations from Russian.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


Does referencing to "Mysterious Deaths of 9 Skiers Still Unresolved" and "How creepy do you want it?" articles makes any sense? It is obvious that both are compilations of this Wikipedia article which existed long before those two were published. LOL -- (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Write a WP article with any fantastic claims, wait until the yellow media spreads this over the world and voila! - you've got a bunch of references to support your claims. :-) I agree, the follow-ups of this WP article with the whole copypasted passages should not be referenced as the sources. Should we remove references to Osadchuk and SFGate articles and move them into the External Links section? (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of the last settlement the hikers passed through[edit]

The English spelling of the last settlement the hikers went through is shown as Vizhay on Google. link :,RU&hl=en&ved=0CAkQ2QY&sa=X&ei=yQlQTdf6IMjUjgfX9IW6CQ%22 Should this be used here ? The river that runs through this town has one of its sources at the location of the incident, suggesting that they were following the course of the river and therefore weren't lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic name of the Dyatlov Pass[edit]

If Wikimapia is to be believed, the russian cyrillic name is "Дятлова перевал", in this article the names are in the opposite order. [1] //// (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "Дятлова, перевал" (comma is required!) and "перевал Дятлова" is akin to difference between "Shekespeare, William" and "William Shakespeare".Geekzoo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked commas don't change word's spellings.Fireuzer (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is ALSO an incorrect interpretation of the original name. "перевал Дятлова" would correctly translate into "Dyatlov's Pass" because in the original name the "a" at the end of "Дятлов"(Dyatlov) signifies possession of the preceding word "перевал"(pass). Therefore "перевал Дятлова" is in fact in the correct order because to someone who speaks Russian it would mean the same as "Dyatlov's Pass". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


"It was the reason for the radiological expertise of the bodies." Expertise? Is there a technical sense, or is this just the wrong word? Slowclap (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  I suspect "expertise" here is directly taken from russian, it really means forensics. (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work. It appears to have been translated, presumably from Russian, but there are many grammatical and idiomatic errors. Valkyryn (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Перевал Дятлова" - this is correct form. Sure, I am russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disasters category[edit]

Can that please be removed. Thank you, -- (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, it is not clear what happened, so we cannot say it was a disaster. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. -- (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit - Change in section "Facts ignored by official inquest"[edit]

I made a minor edit to the third bullet point on the list. I changed "...adjacent areas continually in the period February to March 1959..." to "...adjacent areas continually during the period of February to March 1959..." I changed it because the previous method of stating the sentence was grammatically incorrect. Trevbork (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of citations is disturbing.[edit]

Tons of claims, nothin backin' it up. I'd put a [citation needed] after every other sentence if it weren't locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't do that, it just makes the article look sloppy. If there is a widespread need for references, just use {{Unreferenced}} once at the top. —dgiestc 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, due to the large number of maintenance templates, I combined them into a "multiple problems" heading: notice it says "It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2007." <eleland/talkedits> 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Main sources publicly available on this theme are Matveyeva and Guschin. The book of Matveyeva is considered the best due to the plenty of documentary quotations (actually, about 70% of the book are the quotations) and neutral POV. Her quotations has been verified comparing to original documentaries. The book of Gushchin is also good as a source of facts, but not neutral. Geekzoo (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Circular references :)[edit]

References to Svetlana Osadchuk's article look funny, as it obviously has been written on basis of this Wikipedia one :-)

Yes, it seems there are no sources in English on that subject. I have no idea what to do with this problem.

Geekzoo (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts ignored by Official Inquest[edit]

I vote that this be put back into the article.

(Optaquon (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

+1 The facts are confirmed by documentary citations in Matveyeva and Guschin. Geekzoo (talk)

There are no reliable sources to back this up. Votes cannot overrule policy. Jefffire (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources of the facts in this section are the same used for other sections. Why don't you doubt about reliability of e.g. "History" of "Inquest"? Geekzoo (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The more dubious a claim, the better a reference it requires. Mundane claimed can be verified with slightly more low quality references, whilst very dubious claims require extremely good references. Jefffire (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
What is dubious and what is not - it is your POV. Let's be objective - we either entrust certain sources, or not. We cannot split a source and pick the facts that are not "dubious" according to our personal beliefs. Geekzoo (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We can and do have different standards depending on the claim. You appear to be unaware of a number of Wikipedia policies. It may be useful to read up on them before continuing. Important ones here are WP:Verify,WP:NPoV amd WP:Reliable sources. Jefffire (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I haven't found a justification for selecting the facts we like in a certain source, while omitting those we don't like in the same source. If a reliability of a source is disputed, let's consider the source as a whole.

I ask you to undo your destructions until reliability of the sources is finally defined. How one might verify the parts and add references to them, if they had been removed?

Note also that you have removed the portions which are referenced to the scholarship's sources (I mean toponymics). It's a professor's article published in the university journal and it's on-line version is hosted in an university server. Geekzoo (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Deleted" material remains in the Wikipedia servers and can accessed though the history tab of an article page. Article space should by preference be conservative. Jefffire (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I ask you to explain why this toponymical source is unreliable, or restore it. My arguments for its reliability are provided. Geekzoo (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not completely unreliable, its just not sufficient to verify claims that "facts" were "ignored", which are very hefty claims, since they are alleging things about an official body. Jefffire (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean that the "ignored facts" section should rely on this source. The source was about the name of "Kholat Syakhl" mountain (explaining why the mountain had been named so). No more, no less. Geekzoo (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fairly mundane claim, so that source should be reasonable. Jefffire (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Uff. This article mention a mountain. The mountain have a name. The name is explained in a scholarship article of a professor of linguistics. Is it not reasonable to be referenced? Geekzoo (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I said. Jefffire (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no such claims in any but biased resources. I mean claims of that some facts were ignored by Official Inquest. There was a comprehensive investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of animal explanations; bears or wolves? Qskeptic (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation theories (together with pros and cons) come from literature - particularly, they were analyzed and tested by Matveyeva. I vote to put the section back. Geekzoo (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding comment was added at 07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no reliable sources to back this up. Removal is only option. Jefffire (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Wikipedia article should give an overview of existing literature on this question. This is what this article exactly does. You personally can doubt in reliability of any book ever published, but it's not a reason to force other people to share your thoughts.Geekzoo (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All material must be verifiable from a reliable source. Jefffire (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But I did mean - the goal of Wikipedia article is not to find the truth, but to show how the question is reviewed in SOTA works. The more existing POVs are represented, the better. So, I think even "fantastic" POVs are justified, as long as they are represented in the literature. Geekzoo (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:Undue weight. Jefffire (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But how to estimate this? AFAIK, there is a significant group of people who advocates the "UFO version" for instance. Geekzoo (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's always a slightly woolly problem, but the general guidance is-
   * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
   * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
   * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Jefffire (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The original article was slanted towards the mysterious and supernatural. I think that using words like "mystery" and "mysterious" is biasing the whole article towards a more entertaining for sensationalist view. I find that's not adequate for an encyclopedic article. My last edits are filling the blanks trying to tone down the article. Entrance was not "barred thereafter", it was barred for 3 years (which makes sense if you don't know what killed 9 tourists) and currently there is a memorial at the site. Unfortunately, some pieces of the article twist the same sources they quote in order to create a tone of mystery and secrecy where there should be none.

(Glaster (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

A theory suggested by one Talkradio programme was that the three injured hikers had been accidently struck by the undercarriage of a low flying military helicopter, (the blunt force trauma could suggest such impact injuries), the other hikers just panicked and ran off into night. Given the secrecy of the USSR it would be surprising if there 'were' an official statement at the time.Johnwrd (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


I've listed this page for deletion. After reading the article, it's clear that once all of the unverified and highly PoV claims are removed, there will be essentially nothing left. Jefffire (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it mean that non-English sources cannot be considered as "reliable"? Geekzoo (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say that? Newspaper article and fringe books are unreliable sources, not all of Russia. Jefffire (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Fringe book" - it's your POV again. Geekzoo (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it is not a reliable source. The onus is upon the editor wishing inclusion to demonstrate the reliability of the source. Jefffire (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Might the photos of the fragments of the original inquest case, textually identical to Matveyeva quotes demostrate this? Or then, I would have to prove the photos are not "infringed" also? Geekzoo (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Pictures of the inquest would be good sources. They would make the book entirely redundant. Jefffire (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, then I'll take the old typewriter of my dad and type everything I want. It's a joke.
Nevertheless, it demonstrates oddity of the methods to prove the "reliability". There is a great semantic space of ideas, POVs, books, documents etc ever produced by humanity. Wikipedia is a great guide in that space and a hub where they are connected. Attempts to be a "filter" for them is unproductive and vain, in general. If someone wanted to infringe the facts, he could easily do that.
I'll ask a community to get the pictures of the case. But we'll have to ensure there are not legal issues with that before. Geekzoo (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective, deletion of the entire article seems an extreme and unjustified step as long as the fact that 9 people died in mysterious circumstances, and the basic account of how they were found, are not in dispute. It seems strange that such a famous incident would not be worthy of an article. Speculative explanations and inadequately verified allegations can be deleted or described as such. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a famous and well-documented case. Don't delete it. (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not famous, nor a well-documented case. This is a viral marketing ploy invading Wikipedia. There is no verifiable source older than February 2008; none. All of the "references," except for the alleged book, which cannot be produced, were created in February 2008 onward and all reference each other, without citation to any older authority. Beginning in 2/08, links to the newly created pages begin to appear in forums and newsgroups, posted by new members. Interestingly and most tellingly, a Google search fails to bring up any Russian-language links at all.

For what it's worth; my wife and her family are from that area. They've never heard of it.

An admirable effort; but not for Wikipedia. (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)JohnTurcotte: 09/12/08

Just an honest question, if the entire thing didn't happen and it was all a marketing ploy or a hoax then why was this region named the Dyatlov pass? Apparently Dyatlov was a real person an as far as i can see he is on the picture albums here and here (I must admit i don't speak Russian so my very limited understanding of these pages comes only from online translators, which we all know can fail horribly) If these pictures are fake (which at the moment i'm inclined to say are not fakes) then who was the Dyatlov that the pass was named after? Surely a pass doesn't get named after a nobody? Also there is mention of this incident on websites dating back as far as 2004 see here And this is only one of many pages in Russian i found by using the same simple Google search. This seems to contradict your statement that the only references are from after feb 2008 and that no pages in Russian can be found. Also if this was a marketing ploy then why would the incident be discussed as soon as 2004?Erebus Morgaine (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add: Why start a marketingploy about a book that cannot be produced? Erebus Morgaine (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's akin to asking why Mount Washington is named Mount Washington. Do you have any authority, any at all, as to whom the pass is named after? The marketing ploy isn't for a book. The book is a metafiction device to drive the story, like Lovecraft using The Necromicon. The campaign is for a film or TV show. Watch the skies! (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)JohnTurcotte
The question of who or what the Dyatlov pass is named after is important in establishing if the whole thing is a hoax, if it can be proven that the pass is named after (for example) a general or a writer named Dyatlov then that would invalidate a large part of the article and would make it lean a lot more towards a hoax. (I'm really trying to see both sides here and I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative) However I found the book which you say cannot be produced, and is a metafiction device. It was published in the journal "Ural" in 2000, you can read the entire book online on that site. I'm having a hard time believing that a tv company makes up a story in (at the latest) 2000 for a tv show in 2008. And I can't find a reference for the show either, that seems like a big failure of their marketing campaign (which they would have had 8 years for). Please don't get me wrong, I completely agree that if this is a hoax it should not be on Wikipedia, but I seem to be finding evidence of the contrary, and i think i have showed all the arguments in your initial post to be incorrect, and therefore think it's not a marketing ploy. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the cited sources is a book published in 1967. An official inquest was held after the incident. Presumably both are easily verifiable. A lot of things that happen in the non English-speaking world are not more widely publicised until years or decades afterwards. I see little suggestion - and no evidence - of a hoax here. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 :) Dyatlov is not an uncommon name. For example, Anatoly Dyatlov was one of the engineers at Chernobyl the day of its meltdown. Evgeniy Dyaltov is a Russian actor. A better question is where is the cite to the fact that the pass was named after a 1950s minor hiking expedition? I'll have my wife check out the Russian-language site and report back74.75.54.208 (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)John Turcotte

There is a plaque on the site dedicated to the memory of those who died, if this is a fraud it is a remarkable on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This page should absolutely be deleted. It is an attempt to portray a piece of horror fiction as a factual event. In reality, it is nothing more than a short story that is hosted on the fiction site "creepypasta". Here's the link to the original story: You'll notice that it predates the wiki article and the foolishly printed St. Petersburg news story. (Guyphillips (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

The Russian-language version of this article was created in January 2008. jonkerz ♠talk 16:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


The available parts of the inquest files include the following facts:


*The fatal injuries of the three bodies could not have been caused by another human being.

Er, how is that a fact? Just because they could not imagine a way a human could accomplish this doesn't mean a human couldn't do it. Given the mind-boggling number of ways humans have devised of harming each other, the stuff in this article doesn't seem out of the question.

I'd also like to second the dubiousness of any 'fact' presented in this whole mess. - LafinJack (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This phrase is an exact quotation from the official caseGeekzoo (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the most "reliable source" would be an official case of 1959 inquest. It is not accessible publicly, thus cannot be referenced. But, thanks to Matveyeva and Guschin, we have a large parts of this case as quotations in their books (verified by other researchers who compared the books with their photocopies of the case). I have no idea why they are not "facts". Geekzoo (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the article on facts. These are direct quotes, we cannot verify if they are factually accurate. As a result, it is improper to describe them as "facts". Jefffire (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jury Kuntsevich is not the close friend and the participant of saving expedition, because to him at that time there were 12 years [[Special:Contributions/] 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)W —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Foreign language references[edit]

There seems to be a misconception that the use of foreign language references is the reason that deletion was propose. While this is not true, there is a general guideline for foreign references which need to be followed. For your attendace, here is the relevant section, direct link is WP:RSUE

Non-English sources Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of sufficient quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Jefffire (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources verification[edit]

From Wikipedia policy:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press...

The Guschin's book, before being published as a separate work, has been published by portions in "Uralskii Rabochii" ("Уральский Рабочий"), in 1990 - the official newspaper of Sverdlovsk regional authorities (regional commitee of CPSU). Guschin was an employee of that newspaper. The book itself has been printed by the publishing house of that newspaper. Geekzoo (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

None of that makes it high-quality. Call me snobby, but the official newspaper of Severdlovsk regional authorities doesn't sound quite the same level as The Times. Jefffire (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I expected this :-) So, what do you say about, e.g. "LA Times" or "Chicago Tribune"? In Russia, Sverdlovsk/Ekaterinburg is a city of the same level as those cities in USA. Geekzoo (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I doubt their journalistic standards are the same. I'm prepared to be corrected though, do they have a good list of international awards and such like? Jefffire (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You should be an old-school soviet jounalist to guess about the standards in communistic newspapers. Be sure, they were much less liberal than ones in US. International awards? No. But it still is a largest regional newspaper (now it is a holding that includes a number of other newspapers also). This is their web-site: (er, in russian again).Geekzoo (talk) 19:04, 2 2008 (UTC)
By the sounds of that, it should be regarded as a medium quality source. Perfectly suitable for sourcing uncontroversial material. Jefffire (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.. I'm surprised "The Times" is still cited as being in the same league as something like the Washington Post... It's not the same Times of London that everyone thinks it was.. read the wiki article on the Times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, is it really necessary to have the Cyrillic translation of every Russian name in the article? Shostie (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Nibios (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

radioactivity testing[edit]

The fact that the clothing of the victims was even tested for radioactivity strikes me as bizarre. In most parts of the world, it would never occur to anyone to conduct radioactivity testing on the remains or possessions of people who had died in the wilderness of hypothermia or an accident. Is there any surviving documentation on why the testing was done, who performed the tests, the instrumentation used, and the actual results obtained? WolfmanSF (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer was in deleted "Facts, ignored by official inquest" section: "A former investigating officer said, in a private interview, that his dosimeter had shown a high radiation level on Kholat Syakhl". The officer (Ivanov) wrote in his article ([5]) that he got worried of radiation level after the reports of observed "flying spheres" and ordered to test the clothes and body parts of the last 4 victims (found in May). The documentation on testing is in the official case and cited in [2] and [3]. The tests were performed by the radiologic lab of the Sverdlovsk sanitary and epidemiologic monitoring service and signed by the chief radiologist of the city. The results was that the body parts had normal radioactivity level, but the parts of the clothes showed radioactive contamination from an unknown source of beta-particles (? - sorry I don't know English terminology) - supposedly, with a radioactive dust. Geekzoo (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a pretty important piece of information, important enough at least for someone to have asked the question to begin with. Why was that section deleted if it can be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting and rather strange. Does the testing documentation record the levels of radioactivity measured, i.e. the ratio of the readings to the background level? WolfmanSF (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The answer might be the east ural radioactive trace - a major radioactive disaster which happened 2 years before ( some hundred miles south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What strikes me as REALLY bizarre is the fact that it was conducted at all! We're talking about 1959! Walt Disney had "My friend the Atom" series. VERY few people realized the dangers of radioactivity at that time. VERY little was known about it, especially to some local investigators back in Urals. Nomad (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for Article rename[edit]

Reading the article, I do not understand how this could be denoted as a "accident", would there be any complaints if I renamed the article to Dyatlov Pass incident or something more neutral?--Kevin586 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Incident" sounds good and neutral, yes. It seems that the prevailing theories are "secret military accident" or "avalanche", both of which are an "accident", but the facts read more like a series of unfortunate events and choices than a single "accident"-- (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Incident - yes, definitely. Accident is misleading. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay I got bold and went ahead with the rename. I hope that my rationale and agreements are good enough to prevent another editor from reverting my edit.--Kevin586 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On one of the external inks[edit]

As of now this is in the external links:

I don't think that article is particularly good, since it concludes that this must have been a weapons test, and because it is ignorant of some of the facts from the investigation. For example, the writer discounts the information about the injuries because he thinks it comes from the volunteer searchers, when there was actually real autopsies performed. The newspaper articles say that the informal investigation conference concluded that it was a military operation which caused this, and this article only comes to the same conclusion as they did while confusing the evidence. The skeptoid article/podcast link is better because it raises the avalanche theory, and also because it says that .

I don't know if it should stay or go, which is why I'm asking on this talk page. -- (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the link to the article is accident, change it to incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the *dbskeptic* discussion is one of the less wild-eyed discussions of what evidence there is ... regardless of the conclusions.
Those who question whether the story is real: if so, follow the link to the St. Petersburg Times article. There are plenty of sophisticated people there. They interviewed the one survivor. This story is 49 years old this year, so it will probably remain a mystery unless someone comes forward. Doesn't sound fake to me; things like this happen in the woods often enough. Twang (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thibeaux-Brignollel? Or Thibeaux-Brignolle?[edit]

I think the spelling Thibeaux-Brignollel is an error, and it should be Thibeaux-Brignolle. That fits with the Cyrillic Николай Тибо-Бриньоль better. There are lots of references using the Brignollel spelling on the web but I think they are all copied from an error. Brignolle is a fairly common French-origin surname, but Brignollel is not. (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, but we can only put in what the sources say. A google search for "Brignollel" returns only pages about the incident, although I don't know if French census results etc are online. It looks like the internet pages (and, indeed, the current Fortean Times article) are all copying the same error as you say. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're perfectly right. Yes, he was a French and his surname must be spelled correctly as Thibeaux-Brignolle. Fixed it. (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing tongue[edit]

Does this particular fact worths a special attention? The bodies of four were found in extremely bad condition, it's nothing outstanding in the details like the missing tongue. (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The missing tongue detail does lend to the overall situation being very irregular.--JeffJ (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
What's "irregular" in the fact that a decayed corpse may loose some tissues? -- (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that corpses found after 2 months under 4 metres of snow would decay. --JeffJ (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed JeffJ. Additionally, it's perfectly plausible that the tongue was removed by wild animals post-mortem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The sources do not mention any decay to the body (or being in "extremely bad condition" and is clear that there were no external wounds (despite there being signs of severe trauma). The hiker's footprints were the only ones present. The humble opinion I form from that is that an animal would have likely gnawed on other exposed flesh and not simply torn out the tongue and left. Animals will do significant damage to the exterior of even a fully frozen carcass. The animal would also have left tracks. The bodies were found under several feet of snow (which may have obscured tracks) which removes the presumption of decay. It's a piece of evidence that the reader should have access to as it - and the other facts - helps create a full forensic image of the entire incident. My own inexpert speculation is that she may have fallen or been caught in an avalanche and bitten off her own tongue. But, let's leave it in there for each reader to speculate on. There's certainly no harm in it. --JeffJ (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What are your "sources"? Sveta Osadchuk LOL? Look at the long list of damages in the forensics report to see what else was missing - the whole oral cavity and some soft tissues of the face, for instance. Of course, the missing tongue in this context would not sound so thrilling, so all these was ignored by journalists. The bodies found at May were really decayed as they were in the water under the snow for a month or so - the small canyon where they sheltered and died became a creek at spring. The water temperature is above zero that is not good for organic, you know. And it's only one particular detail among the myths and speculations circulating about this story in the english-speaking part of world with the help of authors like Osadchuk, SFGate, dbsceptic etc who copy the same gossips and factual errors from each other. And you guys contribute into further establishing of the myth by repeating all the gossip in this WP article. -- (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The sources are the sources listed in the article. If you know of more reliable sources then correct the article and cite. Just bitching here isn't terribly constructive.--JeffJ (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

two victims had fractured skulls, two had broken ribs, and one was missing her tongue

Actually, one who had broken ribs and was missing her tongue is the same person. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an noteworthy detail in the authopsy report for Dubibina: "There was up to 100 cm3 (~6.6 fl.oz.) of slimy dark-red substance in the stomach" ( Strictly, there is no explicit statement that the substance was Dubinina's own curdled blood (even in histologic analysis -, but if it is - it indicates that she was alive when the tongue was torn off and she was swallowing blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Paradoxical undressing[edit]

Some were found wrapped in snips of ripped clothes which seemed to be cut from those who were already dead. This can be explained by the phenomenon of paradoxical undressing, where hypothermia victims begin to shed layers of clothing despite the cold due to the effects of the condition on their mental state.

How these two sentences might cohere? The claim on "paradoxical undressing" is pretty ignorant and evidence is against it in this case. I'm removing that passage. (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph about the paradoxical again, since it is not at all coherent. All clothes were found in the tent, not scattered around the area where corpses were found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources again[edit]

Should the references to the Osadchuk's article be removed?

  • It's published long after this Wikipedia article.
  • It's obviously a derivative work made from this article (without even a link to Wikipedia).
  • it does not contain any new facts (except from few citations from an interview with Yudin, that apparently was only original work of that author).

Vote? (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been published after the Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean that the newspaper used WP as its source. I would be more inclined to believe that the newspaper article has been used as a resource for improving the WP article instead of being a "derivative work". And "new facts" are not necessarily for a source to be cited as a reference, only that it supports the WP article.--JeffJ (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources Again[edit]

This should have appeared in the above topic but my addition doesn't show up except in Preview...

Having been published after the Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean that the newspaper used WP as its source. I would be more inclined to believe that the newspaper article has been used as a resource for improving the WP article instead of being a "derivative work". And "new facts" are not necessarily for a source to be cited as a reference, only that it supports the WP article.--JeffJ (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


If you ask me, i think that this should be categorized with cryptids because of the verdict mentioning a "compelling unknown force". Also, this reminds me of that Slenderman crap at the Something Awful forums, particulary because this article[2] is mentioned in the thread! am i right? (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)



Is the St. Petersberg Times considered a reliable source by wikipedia? It seems that the bulk of this article is coming from that one article, which speculates about missile launches and UFOs. I'm going to go through and try and find corroborating sources and maybe do a rewrite of the article. I don't think this article should rely on one so-so source. BrendanFrye (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that it's as reliable as any other mainstream news source. --JeffJ (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be hesitant to make that assumption, it's not a daily and it's aimed at expats and tourists. BrendanFrye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
According to its entry it's a major newspaper, owned by the same publisher as the Moscow Times. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I think my assumption is safe. --JeffJ (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. I've seen nothing to suggest that it is a major newspaper, its not even sold, they have to give it away. "the newspaper is typically given out for free at places English-language "expats" attend, including hotels, cafés and restaurants, as well as by subscription, though it is being increasingly read by English-speaking Russians.[2] It is not available at newsstands.[3]" I'm leaning toward not a reliable source. BrendanFrye (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess you didn't bother with the paper's entry. But that aside, many periodicals make their money from advertising instead of charging the reader (Google's built an empire on this principle). That it's published twice a week and tailored for English-speaking "expats" isn't really a valid indicator of the veracity of its content. And subscription is NOT free [3]. Now if you have information that supports your contention that it is unreliable (i.e., the paper deliberately publishes false information), then I would happily reconsider. I'd also happily read any sources for your quotes that you'd like to provide. --JeffJ (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh wait, you were quoting from the Moscow Times entry. You're not going to argue that that paper is unreliable too, are you? --JeffJ (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you're coming off as a total dick. I did bother to read the entry but its a stub page. Most PUBLISHED periodicals that make their money from revenue streams other than subscriptions are usually not reliable sources. Because their wiki page is a stub I didn't know they have paid subscriptions, I was following the much better written article on their sister paper, the Moscow Times. Now, where in the hell did I say that St. Petersburg Times deliberately publishes false information. What a dick thing to say. Did I ever say that? What the hell is wrong with you? "I'd happily read any sources for your qoutes that you'd like to provide"? What does that even mean? What is wrong with you? BrendanFrye (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mind your manners, little troll, or I'll tell your mom. Sure, the stub didn't mention subscriptions, but I decided to do a bit of research and that's how I found out more information. That's what grown-up editors do; research. Now, you maintain that the newspaper is not reliable, so show your work and explain to us how The St. Petersburg Times is not a reliable source, other than all the non-sequitur (that's Latin for "it does not follow") arguments you've previously provided. And "I would still happily read any sources for your quotes" meant that I would still happily read any sources for your quotes... I'm sorry, but I can't think of a simpler way to express that. (Um... Me happy read sources?) Then, I went on to state that I had discovered the source of your quote - it being The Moscow Times article. (Let me know if I'm going to fast for you.) What I am asking of you is: Can... you... provide... any... sort... of... evidence (anything really)... that... The... St... Petersburg... Times... is... not... reliable... other... than... your... own... personal... opinion...? Oh hey, as it turns out, this definition of non-sequitur kinda works, too --JeffJ (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've reread it a few times and I'm still having trouble here. So, let me get this straight; You couldn't find anything about The St. Petersburg Times to quote, so you decided to argue your point by quoting from a different article about a different newspaper because ...? That's like saying "George Washington was a great leader because he made a speech about going to the moon in 1963". Sure that doesn't make sense, but I thought the Kennedy article was better written so I used that to bolster my argument about how great George was. Yah... What's wrong with me... --JeffJ (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you are a dick. Have fun being who you are! I'm not wasting my time with your trolling, I'll work to improve the article and I'll do my best to ignore you. BrendanFrye (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
See? I knew that if you applied yourself you would come with a really intelligent response. --JeffJ (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


One source claims that infrasound might of played a role in the incident at Dyaltov Pass. This is sourceable. Is it worth mention in this atricle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add any information that can be cited and leave the speculation to the reader. --JeffJ (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

High POV[edit]

This article seems to have a lot of bias.

It seems like it was entirely written by people who believe something "supernatural" happened at Dyatlov or that "the Soviet government was involved". Evidence of this would be the fact that when discussing the fatal injuries to some of the climbers, there is no mention that it is widely believed and accepted that these injuries were caused by a fall into the ravine (where the bodies were found). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, it's been accepted that radioactivity had something to do with it. When you say, there is no mention that it is widley believed and accepted that these injuries were caused by a fall into the ravine (where the bodies were found), you need to find the source and add it to the article. I have found no mention that a fall into the ravine was the cause of the injuries. Geeky Randy (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"I have found no mention that a fall into the ravine was the cause of the injuries"

Basic common sense should tell you that falling into a deep ravine is going to have unfortunate and detrimental effects to a person's body. Yet I find that the information that the persons alleged to have the catastrophic injuries were those found at the bottom of the ravine is buried deep within the article, and long after the description of the injuries had been used to promote an air of mystery by being presented as having no obvious cause - like a headlong plunge into a deep ravine, for example. The delay in presenting certain facts into a topic can have almost as much effect as the complete suppression of information upon certain predisposed mindsets.This is Wikipedia, not Flying Saucer Review, so let's try to maintain some standards please.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 18:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article is biased; It's just that the sources tend to emphasize the unknown. So long as the facts are being presented without editorial slant (by the Wikipedian), then it's mysterious (or "supernatural") because it's a mystery. It is what it is. But feel free to add any objective and reliable explanations and let the reader decide. --JeffJ (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"it's a mystery. It is what it is"

It's unexplained, that's what it is. To continually refer to it as a "mystery" is to foster the notion of a supernatural (i.e. irrational) cause, so I am a little surprised that you employ that term here. Where my socks keep disappearing to is a "mystery", but it doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. I am becoming ever less certain that this alleged incident merits one either...Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 18:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Tracks!!! Are you kidding me???[edit]

Ok, so let me get this straight... They camped in that location because of bad weather, meaning a snowstorm. And yet, somehow, the search people find tracks 24 days later in snow??? That seems extremely suspect. Are we to believe that in those 24 days there was not any snow, and no wind which would cover such tracks? I mean the bodies of the other people were found 3 months later under 12 feet of snow. Something is fishy about the article. Googlemeister (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they were walking in deep enough snow, we could be talking about tracks that are almost three feet deep. I find it plausible that the tracks were still visible 24 days later. There's nothing that said "a lot of tracks" or "all of the tracks". I find it likely that a few tracks (if they were two or three feet deep) could've survived the storm and winds, and that set the search team off. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, there are indications that there weren't a snowstorm yet when the group set the camp — it was only mounting up. Then on the matter of tracks. When the human walks on the driven snow, they tend to leave a trail of compacted footprints. Which won't be blown out in the blizzard or thaw quickly in spring. Indeed, one of the photos shows a trail of pillar-like compacted footprints, loose snow around which was blown away by the wind. -Khathi (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a large group of people walking on snow, most likely compacting it down to ice. Yes it is possible for an expert wilderness tracker to spot tracks such as this many days after the tracks had been formed. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Paradoxical Undressing[edit]

I had removed the part about paradoxical undressing because there's no sources that indicate that it's a consideration in this case. The addition presumes relevance and as such, original research. The reference provided has nothing to do with the Dyatlov Pass incident. --JeffJ (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Times Scenario[edit]

The Petersburg Times article hints at a possible less-than-spectacular scenario but prefers to focus on the more sensationalist aspects. The "mundane" scenario looks like:

Some time after the hikers set up camp, somewhen in the night, an avalanche goes down on their tent, possibly injuring members of the party and burying part of it under snow. The hikers cut open their tent to escape in a hurry (ie, almost naked), fearing more avalanches may come down upon them. They reach the edge of the forest and start a fire to keep themselves warm. Since they have lost orientation, they can't find back to their tent. One of them climbs up a tree to see if he can make out their camp. A number of the hikers sets out in almost the right direction, but succumbs to the cold on the way. Some of those around the fire die. The last survivors take scraps of those bodies' clothing and head off randomly in another direction. Then, they fall to their death into the ravine where they later are covered by snow.

SPT suggests this, but doesn't quite make it explicit. It explains most of the facts in the case in a rather simple way. Should it be included in the WP article? And how? -- Syzygy (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be included! (the link was slightly mistyped - this one works: [4]) You could summarize it in a few sentences, just as you've done above, and it would be a valuable addition. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the skeptics section really works. is not mainstream media and offers just one layperson's personal opinion, and even he states that his theory is probably wrong. As for the article in the St. Petersburg Times, I didn't find that it "hinted" at anything and just reported on various opinions and theories including speculation by some experts that the deaths were caused by the military. I'd leave the site listed in the Links section, but to included someone's unsubstantiated guessing into the article really undermines its credibility.--JeffJ (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I daresay Skeptoid is, while not mainstream media, certainly a bit more than just any personal blog of a layman (How do you become a certified expert in being skeptic? ;-) SPT quotes "The branches on the tree were broken up to five meters high, suggesting that a skier had climbed up to look for something, perhaps the camp, Sharavin said", and "The way the bodies were lying indicated that the three had been trying to return to the camp", implying a scenario similar to Dunning's. Right now, the WP article IMHO leans way too much into the paranormal direction. Once you bring the idea of an avalanche into play (and disregard the "bright spheres" and non-existant missiles for a second), everything begins to make perfect sense. What's your take on it? -- Syzygy (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think Skeptoid is probably bang on with his analysis, but even he admits that his theory is likely wrong. I'd like to see a less paranormal analysis presented in the article, but it should at least be backed by some sort of expert consensus or presented by someone with experience/knowledge of accident/disaster investigation. I think we should be cautious about introducing unsubstantiated conjecture simply to balance the article. I do think that the Skeptoid website should be listed for those who would be interested in his treatise, though. --JeffJ (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the explanation about the broken up branches. While I have to admit it's been a while I climped up a tree, as far as I remeber, I tried to not break the branches cover me from falling down. Is it not more likely, that the branches maent to feed the fire or build something? (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right! Mazarin07 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


On November 29, 2010, I have added the new link to a source where the incident was minutely described and summed up author's ideas under the heading "Criminal Version". But it this new subsection was deleted within an hour without explanation. Now I have added the text again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because it was one guy's speculation. Lots of people have dreamed up possible scenarios - aliens! KGB! CIA! hallucinogenic snowflakes! - but a wikipedia artricle isn't designed as a sounding board for individual theories. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The theory is in lack of a motive. Supposedly, since the “criminals” were Armen men means that they were capable of subduing the harsh weather conditions; but the nine skiers that also came prepared for the cold weren’t? Rakitin proved that “all the injuries, including the torn off tongue, could be made by human” (ooh! Whoa! Really?), yet he ceases to explain why three men can make it through the same weather conditions as the nine victims--that makes no sense. Furthermore, “experience” from skiers to tribes hardly makes three people overpowering nine plausible. This is just a joke. It’s the farthest thing from “logic”. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Paradoxical undressing[edit]

I removed the speculative claims about "paradoxical undressing" from this article and this change has been reverted immediately with a note that it violates the good faith principle and I have to argue its groundlessness "with sources".

Wait, isn't it you who ought to argue for your opinion "with sources" here on Wikipedia? Can anyone point me to a reliable work where this question has ever been examined in connection to the Dyatlov's case?

I am highly appreciate the "good faith principle" but this particular claim is against both the sources and the common sense, that's clear for everyone who had bothered to check even the basic facts about this incident. Nothing shows that anyone from the victims had took his clothes off. At their deaths, they wore the clothes they had on when leaving the tent. The clothes of Doroshenko and Krivonischenko (the two who had been found in their underwear, and, apparently died first) was cut from their dead bodies and found on disabled Dubinina and Zolotarev - that is, it cannot be considered as an evidence of "paradoxical undressing" in no way.

I see that this question was already mentioned above and that there was an attempt to delete these claims. Nevertheless, these "undressing" fantasies are here again and actively protected. I'd ask the advocates to argue for their position and do not try to defend obvious one-man speculations with the "good faith". Thanks. -- (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a source cited about "paradoxical undressing" and its relation to hypothermia, which is considered a likely cause of death for at least a few of the victims. Geeky Randy (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no doubt there are lots of reliable academic sources about "paradoxical undressing" effect and hypothermia, but is there one related to the subject of this article? To suppose this effect was in the case of Dyatlov's group incident, there should at least be an evidence that someone from the group had undressed outside the tent on it's own will, which we cannot get from the known sources. -- (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
"is considered a likely cause of death": Considered by whom? Links to the table, please. -- (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't suppose that it's the cause. It present a useful piece of background information that isn't well known to many readers. This article is full of vague spheres and after-the-fact remembrances of radiation readers and speculation ("Notably, the bodies had no external wounds, as if they were crippled by a high level of pressure"), so appears not at all unreasonable to include it. Sorry if it annoys you. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
If you were going to provide readers with background information on hypotermia, why only this particular detail was picked? AFAIK, hypotermia has many other symptoms and aspects so why not to tell about them all here? At least, pointing the readers to the symptoms listed in the forensic experts report is much better idea than picking a random one, unrelated to the case.
BTW, the "vague" claims you've cited (radiation and absence of external vounds) come directly from the available sources and a common knowledge, in fact. "Paradoxical undressing" is not.-- (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Other aspects of hypothermia are boring and nobody except for professional pathologists are interested into them. The fact that the people may undress before their deaths is, of course, much more fascinating. I think, this was added (like "the missing Dubinina's tongue") solely to spice up the story and make it sounding more like a thriller. -- (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"The article doesn't suppose that it's the cause." — Nevertheless, now it looks like this is so. Could you at least change this piece so that the readers were not misleaded that the "paradoxical undressing" is relevant to the case? Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-removed this material after reading through this rather weak argument for its inclusion. The rules surrounding original research on Wikipedia are pretty clear--unless a source brings up paradoxical undressing in reference to the incident at the Dyatlov Pass, its inclusion as even a possible cause constitutes original research on the part of the editor who is adding it. Grandpallama (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Высшей категории трудности/Of the highest rank of complexity[edit]

Would the book title be better translated as "Of the highest rank of difficulty"? Or, it's even better if there would be a similar English definition established in the sportsmen community. Does anyone know?-- (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


I heard that there was a note found with the message "from now on we know that snowmen exist". Anyone else heard of this or is it just me? (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in some Russian sources, but it is not clear whether that note actually existed or it is a myth added later. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a joke from the self made comic list found in the tent. Obviously, it was completed some time before the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


The article seems to strongly imply that there is still some kind of mystery involved in this. Given that all of the incidents are easily explainable and have been explained, is there really any reason for this impression to be given? For example explains every "mysterious" aspect of the incident. At most there should be a section explaining its context within the history of human belief in "paranormal" activity. As the article says, none of the paranormal explanations are, in any way whatsoever, supported by the original evidence. Robinr22 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Cracked is a really compelling source.
Finding good debunking sources is a common problem with many paranormal-ish topics: The true believers crank out the material but nobody serious wants to waste time responding to goofiness, so the balance of linkable sources stays out of whack. Unless a SCICOP or university professor steps in, it's often hard to find a real source to back up obvious statements like "mainstream science regards this as baloney". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say also that there isn't enough evidence that there was an avalanche to raise that theory above any of the others. It's possible, yes, but don't let Cracked's writing convince you it's the only possible explanation. Soap 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree that Cracked is not really a compelling source. However there is only one English language source for the article - the rest come from Russian language sources that are inaccessable online. They have also been marked as "unreliable sources". From a quick googling I've also found these and Both accept that it is impossible to say definitively what happened but do provide non-paranomal explanations for the events. Given that the sources to back up the unexplained/paranormal theory are limited, in Russian and "unreliable", would this be sufficient to remove the emphasis on paranormal activity or, at the very least, add a section referring to some of the potential explanations? Anyone who reads the article at the moment would come away with the idea that there is no explanation for these events, which isn't backed up by the available sources.Robinr22 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The difficulty with your idea is finding a good, English-language source for alternative explanations.
I have slightly reorganized the introduction to better emphasize the lack of real information. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Cranked don't even know what "Ski-Hiking" is. And what would be solved here is if someone who speaks Russian could translate. nah nah. --Nutthida (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thibeaux spelling again[edit]

I'd like to mention that on the gravestone of his great-uncle Oscar the surname is spelt 'Thibeaux-Brignolles': Does it warrant the change of spelling in the article? Mapple (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban myth[edit]

This article has turned into an urban legend. SO much fantasy is added that it wouldn't be believable even to a 5-year-old. Some serious injuries, broken ribs but no outside damage - DEFINITELY a fantasy. They had cuts and bruised, and it is clearly said in the Russian version.

The most probable cause of this tragedy is a small size avalanche that covered the tent. Everything else (especially some flying objects "seen" at the sight) is just speculation by UFO-hungry public.

The article needs severe editing and a garbage truck. Nomad (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Shortage of English-language sources is the problem, so the article depends a lot on the St. Petersburg Times article, which has been much cricitized by those who know the publication. Just throwing out supported statements because they sound suspicious (and I agree) isn't the way to go, however. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before. --JeffJ (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty reliable source, perhaps?[edit] (GRAPHIC)

This appears to be an English translation (or summarisation) of a lot of the official documents on the case. It also includes the diary entries of the group which are quite interesting even if they don't offer any answers as to what happened on Feb 2.

A further page ( on the same site includes pictures of the original documents.

I'll leave it to those who are more aware of Wikipedia's policies to decide whether or not this secondary source is a reliable one but I thought that it would be worth mentioning here as I can't see in previous comments that it has been brought up. As an aside, the person who wrote the article seems to be quite willing to answer questions about the article and the sources they used. Scronky (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The site you've linked to clearly has more credibility than the Times article, and if it's accurate, then the WP entry would probably be well served by a complete rewrite. Currently, WP reads like tabloid journalism while the linked article read like a text book.

Additionally, some WP 'facts' are misrepresented; for example, the current WP asserts that there were no external injuries, and while there is a quote that can be made to work as a reference, the autopsies show that the bodies had injuries consistent with hand to hand combat. HMKRich (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rakitin's version[edit]

Why there's no mention of it here? Namely, an altercation with a foreign intelligence group? True, by the standards of sources some require it wouln't even come close, not to mention having some really weak points, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. -Khathi (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is we should put a bad source in the article because it exists? Some guy (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have the "UFO version" mentioned in the article. No source can be considered "bad" after that, IMO. -Khathi (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to the UFO theory presented by the police officer who lead the official inquest? There, the theory is included because the person who had it is notable. I can't very well access or read a Russian print article so I can't verify the quality of the source, but it seems to be citing something the officer said. Who is Rakitin? Why is his/her/it's opinion notable? Is the problem in "standards of source" that the theory is ridiculous or the source we would be citing is bad?
For example, if a tabloid reported that the President had claimed aliens were responsible for the bad economy, we wouldn't include this in an article on that President. However, if a reliable major news source reported the President said this, it might still be included in the article on that President regardless of how absurd the idea is. Some guy (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
+1! It doesn't matter how 'absurd' or 'fantastic' the 'UFO version' was, while it was an explanation, supported by Soviet officials at that time. It is unknown if the Soviets had regular UFO studies similar to the US "Blue Book project", but this is a known fact that the head of Soviet intelligence service, Yuri Andropov had a great interest into the subject and asked to monitor and report any observations of UFOs over the Soviet territory personally to him. This corresponds to the police officer's testimony and also explains the secrecy around this case in USSR. (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rakitin version is one which is widely spread now and is quite logical in terms of explanation of the most mysterious issues - radioactive clothes and usage of radiation detectors, red foam on the face of Doroshenko, absence of shoes and upper garments, absence of 1 camera, etc. Портовик (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Dyatlov Pass incident 03.jpeg[edit]

Pray tell what is so mysterious about this photograph? It shows virtually nothing other than a bad photo from an old camera...--Τασουλα (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

One of widespread versions says that this photo was made on that night in tent when "someone" looked inside. Another version - a photograph of luminous balls (there were allegations that the search team saw the same during the search). Rakitin assumes that the photo is work of the expert-criminalist, who pressed a camera lock to learn, whether it is cocked before to take a film (models of cameras "Zorkii" of the 1950s years had no labels by which it was possible to determine the provision of a lock, without pressing it.) AlexNet88 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Who the hell is Rakitin?
  2. Rakitin assumes that the photo is work of the expert-criminalist, who pressed a camera lock to learn, whether it is cocked before to take a film (models of cameras "Zorkii" of the 1950s years had no labels by which it was possible to determine the provision of a lock, without pressing it.) I'm not sure by what manner you devised this sentence but I think it's the worst one I've ever read. It's completely incoherent. Are you an English speaker or using a translator? Some guy (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Alexey Rakitin - the expert who put forward the version that Alexander Zolotariov, Alexander Kolevatov and Yuri Krivonischenko were disguised agents of the KGB.
  2. You're right, I not the English-speaking. Sorry, that you didn't understand my text. If you are able to translate from Russian, I can lay out the original Russian text on this subject here. AlexNet88 (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Take it easy Some guy, he can be excused as a non-native speaker :P Alex, there are a lot of theories put forward about the Dyatlov Pass incident, and if you could find a source for the photo's origins I'm pretty sure it would be OK to add it to the caption. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a source, but it in Russian. If you are able to translate from Russian (or you have somebody who is able to do it well), I can give to you the reference. --AlexNet88 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Radiation aging?[edit]

What is meant by the statement that there was "radiation present as the bodies were aged very quickly". Radiation is measured with a Geiger counter, not by "aging" of bodies. (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That was probably bad translation - that might mean fast fade out due to short half-life time of contaminating isotopes.
Bad translation indeed but they were probably referring to the use of a scintillometer (like a geiger counter, but not) to measure the frequency (very quickly) of detection of scintilla (radiation) produced by the decay (aged) of the radioactive particles (bodies). Thus, a high rate of decay would indicate above-average radiation. The term "geiger counter" is often misapplied to scintillometers but i can hardly be considered an expert. I am merely aware that there are many ways to describe both the relative radioactivity of radioactive materials and the radiation emitted by radioactive materials, not to mention many ways to describe intensity of exposure to radiation. Even just in english. I am also not a speaker of the russian language, just someone with a concept of how tricky it is to translate russian. For example, it is difficult to infer meaning by context within a single sentence of russian given that in russian the order of words in a sentence is not formalized as it is in english. You can start your sentence with any part of it's meaning and complete it in any order you see fit. We would need a native russian speaker who is fluent in english sitting next to a native english speaker who is fluent in russian to get a decent translation of any of the original source material. Ejorge (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It was not a "bad translation". The KGB "released" their studies where it was written that bodies were exposed to the radiation. (probably measured with the Geiger counter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Smiling person[edit]

According to this page: the smiling person behind the backpack (Dyatlov_Pass_incident_00.jpg) is, probably, either Alexander Zolotariov or Thibeaux-Brignolles (the distinctive felt hat actually belonged to Thibeaux-Brignolles who might give it to Zolotariov). And, by the way, inscriptions to this picture on some russian sites state that the person with backpack, dressed in "light-gray" windcheater is Lyudmila Dubinina, and she hugs Yuri Yudin. (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)A.M.M.

Otorten mnt[edit]

The name does not mean "don't go there" in Mansi. This is a misspelt variant of a Mansi word meaning "windy". I don't bother to find the sources to support this claim now, but the author of this "translation" didn't do that either. I am just removing this. (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


A lot of this would seem to be plagiarized from this article in the St Petersburg news.

Just to give one example: St Petersburg News: "The four were better dressed than the rest, and those who had died first had apparently relinquished their clothes to the others. Zolotaryov was wearing Dubinina’s faux fur coat and hat, while Dubinina’s foot was wrapped in a piece of Krivonishenko’s wool pants." Wikipedia: "These four were better dressed than the others, and there were signs that those who had died first had apparently relinquished their clothes to the others. Zolotaryov was wearing Dubinina’s faux fur coat and hat, while Dubinina’s foot was wrapped in a piece of Krivonishenko’s wool pants." --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 05:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dead Mountain: The Untold True Story of the Dyatlov Pass Incident[edit]

There is now a book on this incident titled Dead Mountain: The Untold True Story of the Dyatlov Pass Incident. The author actually went to Russia, traveled the route followed by the party, interviewed the sole survivor (Yudin), interviewed family and friends of the hikers, and gained access to the photos and journals of the party. The author debunks the conspiracy theories but admits some mysteries remain. Of interest is the theory that the topography of Dead Mountain and the location of the camp made it susceptible to an "infra-sound event" that could induce panic in humans. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing eyes?[edit]

The page currently states in the third paragraph that Dubinina was missing her tongue and eyes. There is no further reference to missing eyes in the text, and the citation links to an article that also fails to mention missing eyes. I'm just passing by so I don't want to muck things up, but if someone more familiar with the case could clarify I would appreciate it, though I will probably never know. (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

She did indeed miss her eyes and tongue, but that was obviously due to natural processes of skeletonisation (her body was discovered months after her death). The same applies to the other three crewmen discovered with her. --glossologist (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you will study the autopsy report, there is written that her tongue and all other vocal organs were missing and were torn apart, taken out at the time when she was still alive. The autopsy also reports that they have found at least 300 ml of her own blood in her stomach which means that she was still alive when that happened. It seems that the killer did not like her screaming so he destroyed her vocal organs.

Coordinate error[edit]

{{geodata-check}} ARMY

The following coordinate fixes are needed for (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't said what correction you think needs to be made in the article's coordinates, and they appear to me to match pretty closely the location of the incident; so I'm closing this request. If you still think that the coordinates need to be revised, please make a new request below, including the {{geodata-check}} template and explaining clearly what change needs to be made. Deor (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia has to stop trading with them. There is no way that they will give him secrets, ever. — Preceding

I agree. (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New Theory about the causa of the accident[edit]

A new theory is reported in this article:

unsigned comment added by 2602:306:33BC:460:1113:5087:528A:2144 (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Survivors or no?[edit]

The "Background" section mentions Yudin as the lone survivor, but the inquest files state that there were no survivors. Which is correct? (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yudin left the group before the incident happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Broken Link to Source[edit]

The often cited link to sptimes does now refer to the moscow times landing page. The article seems to be mirrored quite often(, here or here. Therefore I would suggest to exchange the misleading link. --Elveon (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean? It's not clear[edit]

"They would likely have come in contact with the snow, which also might have ruined their boots and extra clothing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Attributions to Lev Ivanov[edit]

The current edit reads, "He [police officer, Lev Ivanov] also stated that, after his team reported that they had seen flying spheres, he then received direct orders from high-ranking regional officials to dismiss the inquest." My reading of the article is that no member of the investigation team reported seeing anything UFOish, but that they noted reports of strange phenomenon in the region made by others. Moreover, Ivanov was told to close the case, but there was no stated connection between the incidental UFOish reports and the case being closed. If I'm reading the article correctly, the present article edit is rather misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible Alien Encounters?[edit]

Seriously folks? Can we get this article written with the facts and not fairy tales? There are several good sources out that explain what happened. If we are going to allow space aliens then we might as well allow Santa Claus getting lost on his way to the North Pole. Remember these are real people who died here, we need to not allow this article to turn into some kind of paranormal poster child. I hope to get to this soon, if you beat me to it all the better.Sgerbic (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lone survivor?[edit]

In the background section the following is stated: Yudin, the lone survivor, postulated that "Dyatlov probably did not want to lose the altitude they had gained, or he decided to practice camping on the mountain slope."[2] This survivor is never mentioned again in the rest of the article and later on it is said that [t]here were no survivors of the incident.

Sorry, I see this was addressed previously.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dyatlov Pass incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Source 3 - "The Cloaked Hedgehog". The Cloaked Hedgehog. Retrieved 2016-01-22.[edit]

This seems unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)