Talk:Dyatlov Pass incident/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Birthday Puzzle

Of the ten who set out on the training hike up Kholat Syakhl, one had a birthday on the day of their deaths, February 2; two others within several days of February 2; and three others had had a birthday three weeks prior (January 11, 12 and 13). That's six out of ten. This fact yields no immediate conclusion. Lyudmila Dubinina, Nicolai Thibeaux-Brignolles, Yuri Yudin, and Alexander Kolevatov were the others with distant birthdays. Perhaps they were invited along to round out the crew. The odds are quite low that a randomly selected group of people would have six out of ten members with birthdays within three weeks on either side of the trip, 0.00014%. Simple calculation of statistics will reproduce this number. These odds almost certainly prove that the selection of persons was for a birthday celebration. Did they decide to celebrate on Zolotaryov's birthday? Can this certainty contribute to understanding the mystery? Steve (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you've got your maths right. Take a look at https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-shared-birthday.html Whilst this problem is different, the method would point you to a much less unlikely answer.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the searchers who found the tent said they found an untouched bottle of alcohol and immediately drank almost all of it, because "they felt too cold". Would you drink it in such a situation? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Date Formatting

This article currently uses dmy and mdy dates inconsistently, with dmy dates present predominantly in the first sections of the article and the references, and mdy in other places. Although the article has ties to Russia, Russia does not speak English, so I feel that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Strong national ties to a topic is not applicable. However, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Retaining the existing format, it seems that mdy should be used because this was the format used by the first major contributor (starting April 6, 2006), and was used thereafter in the article's body until an edit on November 2, 2017, changed the format of some of the dates. With the original format and the format in most of this article's history being mdy, I think that is probably what should be used, but since a significant portion of the article and its references currently uses dmy dates, I wanted to ask to see if a consensus can be reached.ChromeGames923 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguably, the first date format used by that editor was an odd variation on DMY: "2th February, 1959", shifted to "2nd February, 1959" before becoming "February 2nd, 1959", then "February 2 1959" here for quite a while until finally going back to "February 2, 1959" here, until 1 November 2017. The references seem to have evolved as a mix of various date formats throughout the years. Personally, I'd favour making everything consistent with DMY, since the major change seems to already have been accepted and it's more consistent with the first date format used. --tronvillain (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Better sources

If anyone has time to improve this article, this is a good recent source

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2019/02/01/mystery-at-dyatlov-pass/ Repliedthemockturtle (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly busy, but I added the news about the reopened investigation, so I'll see if I can sort out some of the outstanding issues.

Cadar (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick run through the current Wikipedia article and the Forbes article doesn't reveal much that needs adding or clarification, except for one needed citation regarding the closing of the Pass, which is unmentioned in the Forbes article.

Cadar (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Reopening of investigation

It boggles the mind that the authorities apparently are discounting any possibility of a crime before even going into the investigation. Does that sound reasonable to anyone else, or am I the only who sees a problem with that? Cadar (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That does seem a bit odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit by 88.185.85.117 removing stress

Just to confirm for everybody, I've consulted with a Russian translator friend of mine, and the accents are not correct punctuation, they only show the pronunciation stresses of the words. So removing them is correct. Cadar (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The missing tongue and eyes of Dubinina, etc

Note that the autopsy of Dubinina clearly states that all soft tissue damage to her head, including the missing tongue and eyes, were "post-mortem changes (rot and decay)" brought on by the fact that Dubininas body was found lying face-down in a stream of water, where it had been for months. In other words, that her eyes and tongue were missing was in no way surprising. ^[1]

Picture of Dubinina, as she was found, face-down in a stream of water: ^[2]

Will edit article to clarify the above as well as coroners officially stated cause of death.

240B:11:161:1600:205B:ED75:B235:3260 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I say only once.

На Алтае было также. Но выжила только одна девушка.

В другом месте и с другими было такое же. Я тоже не могу вспомнить. Потомушто вчерашний день не сегодняшний. Потомушто время. А если б не было времени ?

"Остановитесь! тов. Мгновенье !!" - толкнул научный тракт акт тов. Сергеевич. "Пухбах!!" ;)

P.S. И шо цэ .. таки .. шО ?? 176.59.203.50 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Google.. Мууугли .. ))) 176.59.201.114 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Lone survivor?

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.

I want to remove a lone sentence from the "Expedition" section

I want to remove this: "Diaries and cameras found around their last campsite made it possible to track the group's route up to the day preceding the incident." Say "yes" if you agree. Say "no" if you don't. Emotioness Expression (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tentative "no"; why do you want to remove it? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No. You haven't explained why you want to remove it. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you didn't put the explanation and alternative you suggested at User_talk:Lard_Almighty#Dyatlov_Pass_incident here as well - I think your suggestion:

On 31 January, the group arrived at the edge of a highland area and began to prepare for climbing. In a wooded valley, they cached surplus food and equipment that would be used for the trip back.

is give or take a good addition, and not inaccurate. What the original sentence-in-question fails to capture from the source (which is vice media...) and should be retained in some form, is:

Yury Yudin, the only member of the expedition to survive, got sick before the crew made it fully into the backcountry, and stayed behind at a village. The other nine trekked on, and according to photographs developed from rolls recovered by investigators,

this is used to validate Yury Yudin's alibi. As for using diaries to determine the route they took, that seems obvious enough to remove or mention elsewhere - they didn't have gps back then, so thats the *only* way to know, and the first thing the police would do in any similar situation. To me the original sentence only really tries to add mystery and drama. Strangerpete (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Taken from User_talk:Lard_Almighty#Dyatlov_Pass_incident: There's a reason I want to remove this: "Diaries and cameras found around their last campsite made it possible to track the group's route up to the day preceding the incident." One, I thought it would be perfect if I remove it in favor of this: "On 31 January, the group arrived at the edge of a highland area and began to prepare for climbing. In a wooded valley, they cached surplus food and equipment that would be used for the trip back." And two, the reason I removed it the first time is that it looks inappropriate to my taste. Emotioness Expression (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you haven't said why you think "it would be perfect". Looking "inappropriate to my taste" is not a valid reason. You need to be able to justify removing sourced material. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"A valid reason" why I want to remove it is because:

1. I think those who are working with the case will be able to recognize the area of the group's path based on photos taken from them.

2. I think we can only guess.

3. While it is possible to track them up to the day of the incident, I think we can only rely on descriptions given by them on their diaries.

That's it. For those who want a reason why I want to remove it, that's the reason why. I hope you understand why I do this. Emotioness Expression (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not for people "working on the case". It is for the general public who come here looking for information on the incident. The more sourced information we can give them the better. I'm not sure what you mean by number 3. The sentence you want to remove says precisely that we know their movements up to the day before their disappearance because diaries and photographs were found. This sentence says in effect "we can only rely on descriptions given by them on their diaries". You may know that the diaries and cameras were what were used to track their movements, but many people won't. And given that they are mentioned later in the article removing the initial mention is problematic.

There is no problem adding sourced material but I can still see no reason to remove this sentence. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

New explanation

Does someone far more familiar with the topic than me want to look at this new paper and this from National Geographic that appears to confirm the avalanche theory and how and why it was so deadly. Nthep (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

11th person

Our article currently says

At that time, the Sverdlovsk City Committee of Physical Culture and Sport listed approval for 11 people.[7] The 11th person was listed as Semyon Zolotaryov who was previously certified to go with another expedition of similar difficulty (the Sogrin expedition group).[7]

which suggests the 11th person who wasn't part of the group (the 10th left early as discussed later) is Semyon Zolotaryov. But then it lists Zolotaryov as one of the dead, with a footnote explaining he had asked to be referred to by a different name so is common referred to by a different name in sources. So who is this 11th person who was given approval? Or did they not need to approve specific people and instead there was approval for up to 11 people to go without a list of who was approved? The source is Russian and trying to rely on a machine translation for this seems problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

2000 Documentary

In the section Popular Culture it says; "In 2000, a regional television company produced the documentary film, with a follow-up journal-style novella based on a fictionalized account of the incident released in 2005."

What is the name of the documentary? The sentence contains the words "the documentary film" but mentions no name? There is neither any link.

Okama-San (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Does not seem to be mentioned at ru:Гибель тургруппы Дятлова. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The documentary films that was made on this is called " The dyotlov pass incident" Alpha pack (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

How they died wasn't of natural causes,

There is a rumor that something paranormal was active there. Something inhuman. That is the reason as to why parts of their bodies was removed and why things was missing. Apparently the military was trying to cover it up by causing an avalanche.

Is this true or not? 197.184.182.18 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I heard about the rumor but I don't know if it's true. I believe it's true tho. Alpha pack (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

NY Times Article

There is a new NY Times article on this incident: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/01/world/europe/dyatlov-pass-avalanche-russia.html I do not know much about this incident, but perhaps somebody who is an expert will want to integrate this NY Times article into the Wikipedia entry. Thanks for considering! MDW333 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A Fortean explanation

Any good Fortean will recognise the symptoms of 'Panic'. This isn't just ordinary panic, but the origin of the word - fear of the God Pan. People alone in raw nature wilderness are suddenly overtaken by an overmastering intense and irrational fear, so compelling that they flee with no thought of where they are going. Combine this with 'folie a deux' or in this case neuf, and no other explanation is required - once well away from the tent and coming to their senses they were doomed. I can't give any specific citations, but such cases have been routinely reported in the magazine 'Fortean Times'. Wolstan Dixie (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

There were larch needles on Dubinina, it does not grow near that mountain 176.65.115.36 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://dyatlovpass.com/case-files-355-357?rbid=17743

[2] ttps://dyatlovpass.com/resources/340/gallery/Lyudmila-Dubinina-post-mortem-1.jpg

[1]

[2]