Talk:Murder of Oksana Makar

Neutrality dispute

I dispute neutrality of this article on the following grounds: 1. The page mentions what has happened as well as who committed the alleged criminal acts - yet there has not been a Court hearing as of yet. The men have not been found guilty. It is quite possible that at last one of them will be quitted of rape, or even all. It is possible that at least one of them will be acquitted of murder. 2. It says that two of the suspects were released by the police. It does not mention a crucial fact they were released on police bail – nit just released. At that time it was not a murder enquiry but even in case of murders in many countries if the police can not find enough evidence suspects are released on bail. 3. The investigation section mentions some connections with ex-government officials. The way it is worded implies a connection between suspects being released and some dubious connections to those in power. It most such a connection is alleged while inclusion in investigation section gives undue significance and authority to the allegations. Also, while in itself not a sufficient ground to dispute NPOV, coverage of funeral is of questionable merit. Choice of wedding dress burial was a contentious topic as well as the circumstances of the burial – in a closed cemetery next to War Heroes – despite her own past that included problems with the law. Oxy20 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Currently it's all sourced. I suggest you provide us with sources instead of assuming we'll trust your opinions.Malick78 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that it is all sourced. To blatantly, or by strong innuendo, state that a particular person committed a criminal offence there has to be a verdict to that effect issued by a Court of Law. There has not been such verdict. If you claim otherwise, it is up to you, as the author, to substantiate the material. Obviously very often news sites are used for substantiate information - but if they convey the court verdict is one thing and if they report suspicions or beliefs it is a different matter. Oxy20 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxy20 - please explain below the parts that you believe are non-neutral. Please also explain why you think they are non-neutral, and how you think they could be better worded to make them neutral.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you have a bad understanding of non-neutral. It would be non neutral if the article had a long history of each of the suspects, saying many bad things about them, and no good things. The article does not do this. I am sure Malick78 will know that in his country, it is 100% normal for the newspapers to write many bad things about suspects questioned by the police. So by international standards what is mentioned in this article is 100% neutral.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutly non-neutral to present events and accusations of criminal offences as facts without there being court verdicts to that effect. I provided sufficient explanations and justifications above. I will say once again citing a bebsite or even an appantly reputable news site is not sufficient. One has to assess on what basis the newsarticle is written. If it is a report of a court hearing or the verdict - then it is one thing. If it is journalists who are just writing based on their "own sources" then obviously matters mentioned in such reports can not be presented as absolute and undisputed fact - especially when living people are accused of criminal offences. There has been indeed lots of publications about this case. But there are actually not too many unique publications and analysis - much of it was a handful of articles that were copied or translated many times over.Oxy20 (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to my understanding of non-neutral I can say that Russian vesion had numerous editing and NPOV wars. Some users even made official complaints against me. The outcome of their complaints was not to their satsfaction - resulting administrator attention resulted in page being truncated to a couple of sentance dscribing indisputable facts with the demand that the aticle is rewritten in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Oxy20 (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that he being buried in a wedding dress in a nice cemetery was a contentious topic. OK - where are your sources for this? If you have some, maybe you should write a section on it for the article. But make sure it is 100% cited like the rest of the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not just a nice cemetery but a closed cemetery that was closed for more then a decade. There are WW2 and Afghanistan heroes buried there. Even relatives of the heroes in the past were declined permission to be buried there. Even if she was not a sex worker that kind of burial would not be appropriate – but given her reputation locals were indeed ouraged as she was burried in a closed cemetery right next to the heroes. http://gazeta.ua/ru/articles/life/_zhiteli-sela-luch-vozmuscheny-makar-nuzhno-bylo-pohoronit-ne-tam-gde-geroev/429431 Oxy20 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles in gazeta.ua about what happened. It is interesting that you cherry picked that one. How about this one?[1] Or this one?[2]--Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked by you to find sources for some statements I made. I found them and presented them. You found some more articles about issues not raised by me at all. If you think they are relevant - you can initiate discussion or inclusion afterall did not take over the responsibility for writing or editing the articleOxy20 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There was also concern that the grave in the normal cemetery was dug up and then was abandoned as they then dug up the closed cemetary. There were concerns that is is a bad sign - that someone would die soon to fill the empty grave. Less relevant to the article - but so is the fact that she was buried in the wedding dress. http://dn.vgorode.ua/news/107510/ Oxy20 (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This article[3] in gazeta.ua talks about her being buried in a wedding dress. Do you think maybe Konstantin Sabatovich's opinion should be put into the article?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum between me and you. You have found some sources - great. If you want to discuss the issues you mentioned please translate the passage so that all members here can read, understand and comment on appropriateness of otherwise of including the infomation. Oxy20 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion as to neutrality

The opening sentence is "The murder of Oksana Makar after she was allegedly raped, strangled and set on fire by three men took place in Mykolaiv (Ukraine) on 8 March 2012." This sentence is mangled. The murder did not occur after she was raped, strangled and set on fire, but was the end result. It is also not alleged that she was raped, strangled and set on fire. That is a fact, is it not? What is alleged is by whom ... Why is this important? Is it because of charges of political corruption? Why not begin with a different sentence that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is reasonable. Did murder occur after all this and at what point murder occurs when several attempts are made to kill and the victim actually survives for longer then attackers imagined is a pdantic question. I think it is clear to all what is meant. Allegedly because there is still no conviction for this offences. It is not for us to discuss guilt or innocense by each one of the suspects. It is sae to assume that strangulation / murder occurred. However not so clear cut with rape and also even more murder not clear whther all three are actually guilty of murder. Oxy20 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro

I think this page is comparable in a few ways to that on murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence. Though only famous for being murdered (and the subsequent investigation/trial... etc), the page starts:

Stephen Lawrence (13 September 1974 – 22 April 1993) was a Black British teenager from Eltham, south east London, who was murdered in a racist attack while waiting for a bus on the evening of 22 April 1993.[2] Witnesses said he was attacked by a gang of white youths chanting racist slogans.[3]

As you can see, it starts like a bio even though it isn't. Wouldn't this page be better if the first line was similar (i.e. name in bold and birth/death dates)? Malick78 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not a biography, it is an article about a news event. We only need to know that Makar was 18, her date of birth has no relevance to this article. WWGB (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Ukrainian media is going ever further into the life of Oksana (hey, she boxed for three years! ;) ) - so to pretend that the less info about her the better seems a bit weird. I can't believe you even deleted her middle name... That said, I didn't say it should be a biography, but more info (and a better first line!) would be helpful. Malick78 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have information about Oksana in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were indeed to put such extensive level of details then it would be a affront to the NPOV to omit some of the a lot glorious details. So it is, in my opinion, better that the level of detail is kept low. In any case a balanced view has to be presented. Oxy20 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that there is comparable level of Notability between this case and Stephen Lawrence. While trials of the suspects that are expected to start in the next few months will no doubt be covered in the media there is no reason to believe that this case will leave such a lasting legacy for the Ukraine as Stephen Lawrence did for the UK.Oxy20 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You dont present any evidence for your claims except your personal opinions about the case Oxy20.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to prove a negative. It is for those who make statements to back them up with evidence. I have not added any content to the article. Yet I did provide sources of some of the points well above. It is for those who write to prove authoritative sources for the claims exist. Not for others to actively search for sources that contradict the article. Oxy20 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But you again and again try too do exactly that contradict the articles sources with your own "theories". Perhaps you should try to find sources for your claims, otherwise it will seem like you are personally involved in this case somehow.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please state clearly which claims I made that I need to substantiate? I was asked by one user above to substantiate my comments regarding the burial - I did. What else do I need to substantiate?Oxy20 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

From which media commentary or source do you basis this comment on I disagree that there is comparable level of Notability between this case and Stephen Lawrence. While trials of the suspects that are expected to start in the next few months will no doubt be covered in the media there is no reason to believe that this case will leave such a lasting legacy for the Ukraine as Stephen Lawrence did for the UK. Its a comment of personal opinion with no basis in any media or opinions from people with knowledge about the case. Please explain this, as a start.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The author made the comparability statement with the implication that he would like to reflect it in the main article. I voiced disagreement and it is now for the author to ensure his views are adquately substantiated. It is those who make assertions that have to prove them rather then those who express doubts to actually dissprove them. Oxy20 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But the author has sources for all that is claimed in the article. You mostly state your own personal opinions and has failed to answer my question. Please try again.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Biographical details

That an article on a murder (or suspected murder) should have details about the victims does not seem in the least exceptional. Some articles have almost no information on the victims, whilst others have brief biographies, and/or infoboxes about about their lives before they were murdered/disappeared. The Jack the Ripper case is exceptional in that the victims have their own biographical pages. Below are some cases that readers of English Wikipedia will probably be familiar with:

• Murder of Joanna Yeates. Has infobox on victim.
• Murder of Stephen Lawrence. Has infobox on victim.
• Murder of Rachel Nickell. Has infobox on victim (lacks photo) an a brief biography.
• White House Farm murders. Has a brief biography of two the victims and a long biography of one of them.
• Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins. Has brief biography of victim.
• Ipswich serial murders. Gives brief biographies of victims.
• Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh. does not give a biography, but states her occupation and date of birth.
• Peter Sutcliffe. States the victims' occupation and age.
• Soham murders. Gives the full name and date of birth of both victims.
• Ted Bundy. Gives the victims' name (sometimes including middle name) and age.
• Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. Gives name and age of victims.

I see no reason why the article on the murder of Oksana Makar, should not give her full name, date of birth, and some brief biographical details.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as the infomation is objective I can see no problem in having a very brief biography. However many people would argue against objective information being presented - because if you start writing the victims biography in any detail you will have to include bad things as well. You can't just write about good things and ignore bad. Oxy20 (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems pretty thorough and conclusive, Toddy1. Thank you for your work.Malick78 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that concerns me about the negative stories[4][5] about Oksana Makar is that they are attributed to anonymous people. This is similar to the character assassination of the landlord by the press in the Murder of Joanna Yeates case. It seems better to stick to less controversial information.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, rumours of such a kind aren't suitable - proper sources are needed. As for Oxy, no one is intending to make this a whitewash. We'll include anything that is notable. Why do you doubt that? Malick78 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick, do you have a source for her birth date? Other Wikis give her date of birth as 11 June 1993. Your edit put in 1992. Whatever the right answer, it needs a citation.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The cross on her grave seemed to say 1992 when I looked at it yesterday - but having looked at another picture just now it looks more like 1993. Sorry :) Malick78 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please could you add links to these photos here.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

One here looked like it said 1992... but another on another site (don't have link now) looked more like 1993. Vot tak :) Malick78 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, much of negative backgrond coverage of the suspects, for example that they are "bigwigs" and that their alleged connections affected the case, are based on pure rumours. With negative information about the victim at least journalists are making statements that can be easily proven false if they are false. (While statements that suspects connections affected the investigation are very safe four journalists to make as they can never be actually proven wrong - regardless of whether the statement is accurate ) Do you really want me too find more sources (including a recording of a TV programme where you can see witnesses) or is it just another attempt to ensure only positive information about the victim is coming out?Oxy20 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The "bigwigs" thing is sourced adequately.Malick78 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxy20, perhaps its time for you to stop accusing other users of pure rumours and isntead focusing on finding sources for your still unsourced claims.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found sources for "claims" you have asked me to prove. My sources are just as good as article authors - newsreports. I draw your attention - I did not actually edit the article. The onus for justification is fo those who actually make claims in the article. If you think news reports are not suffiient justification then I draw your attention that the whole article is based on them. But if there are claims that I made that you want me to prove be specific what exactly you want me to prove.Oxy20 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Since no one here seems to understand Oxy's objections, I'll remove the tag later today.Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agree.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree; article is written in a neutral tone. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• There is a principles of not guilty until found guilty. There is also a style in which encyclopedic articles have to be written - just look at the murder examples given by another user above. "Three men allegedly raped Makar at an apartment owned by one of them and attempted to strangle her. They then set fire to her at a building site" this is not appropriate language. It should be transferred into passive. i.e. "Allegedy she was attacked by three ..."Oxy20 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No thanks. Your proposed wording suggests that she might not have been raped, strangled and set on fire.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Also the way "It was later revealed that their parents were ex-government officials" is prsented implies that wikipedia endorses the view that there is a connection between their release on bail and their alleged connections. This has to be clarified.Oxy20 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is well cited. The belief that they were being being given favourable treatment because of their parents was part of the reason there were the protests.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• They were not released, they were released on bail. There is crucial differences between the two. In any case one is corect and the other is not. Oxy20 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Dealt with (see the section you created below.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The infobox

Listing of suspects below the profile is not appropriate. Even in proven cases (as per examples above) such prominenc is not given to offnders.Oxy20 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The article uses Infobox news event. In my opinion it would be better to use Infobox person, as in the article on the Murder of Joanna Yeates. This would also meet Oxy20's objection.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The graveyard 'controversy'

Oxy raised the issue of the graveyard.

They had to reopen a closed graveyard to bury her in. There is a new graveyard, but it consists of a field with 3 graves and no fence. It was decided that it would be a humiliation for the region to have such a high profile burial there, so they approved a spot in the old one. A few people did not like it.

Do people want me to put in a paragraph on the lines of the above in the article with citations to www.gazeta.ua?

I assume the serving a chocolates afterwards need not be mentioned. Oksana liked chocolates. And yes, there is an article about the serving of chocolates in www.gazeta.ua--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that the graveyard issue may have been controversial, but I'm not able to judge if it's worth adding it. If you feel it is worth it though, please go ahead.Malick78 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is not just because they opened the old graveyard. The controversy is more due to the fact that in that cemetery she was given a place right next to WWII and Afghanistan Heroes. So basically there were several different issues with it combined together: 1. closed cemetery reopened, 2. the trees and landscape near graves of the heroes had to be disturbed, 3. she was burred right next to the heroes while she had a reputation locally for being in the sex trade and due to this people felt that is especially inappropriate. So if her past is not mentioned people probably would not understand why people were so upset. So as at this point in time there is no desire to mention her own past it might be appropriate to leave details of her funeral out altogether. Then, after the trial, of cause, any such details about her past, if they are raised during the trial will have to be added as well as a number of controversies this case has caused - including burial site and money raising effort.Oxy20 (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxy2 - Find some decent sources and propose a sentence to add to the above. And it needs citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of person says bad things about Oksana?

This will interest you.[6] The barmaid, who told journalists that Oksana was a slut, turns out to be a friend of the wife of one of the accused.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source about the campaign of disinformation being waged against Oksana on the internet.[7]--Toddy1 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article you cited has to be reflected in the article eventually. But it does not actually prove your point. It actually shows that people who dare to say bad things about the victim have been threatened by her "support group". And as per article you cited the leader of her "support group" attacks people on petty details. He did not address the claims that the victim was in sex trade at all. He mentioned that claims that her father is convictd robber is false (it IS actually false but in fact he was in jail for dealing in wholsale quantities of drugs and theft - and people in Ukraine view drugdealing as especially serious offence). He also attacked claims that her monther was in prison when she was growing up. But her mother was in fact in prison when the victim was growing up, perhaps he meant that she was only for a few years not the full 16 or however many years of growing up. http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/1332284-smi-obnarodovali-informaciyu-o-kriminalnom-proshlom-semi-oksany-makar And here is interview of grandmother of the victim confirming this http://fakty.ua/147318-malenkuyu-ksyushku-vyshvyrnuli-iz-semi-kak-kotenka Oxy20 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I find the name of the heading to be offensive. I understand your Russian / Ukrainian background where there is an unwritten rule "about dead either just good or nothing". And yes I breached that rule and make no apologies for that. This is a public case and we are writing an encycplopeadic article on this matter - not a whitewash from a particular POV. Victim's past and details of her family have been wildly publicisd in Ukraine (and it is not just a character assasination - they might well be, and I suspect will be relevant to the case), so were certain details of her mother's fundaising campaign and certain details of the burial all of which have atracted some controversies and helped to keep the case public spotlight.Oxy20 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the heading is neutral. It neither condemns nor condones such people. It is merely a useful heading to collect information under. This information may be used at a later date to add sections to the article.

Thank you though for the additional information. It is just what we need to collect.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Released vs Released on Police Bail

I believe released should be replaced by "released on police bail". Any objections or comments?

Good analysis rather then hundreds of resources reprinting the same article: http://hrabro.com/7820

The sources bellow are very popular news-sites in Ukraine: http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/1334430-skonchalas-oksana-makar http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2012/03/25/6961396/ Oxy20 (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I have added that they were released on bail with a citation to Pravda.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more accurate translation of "под подписку о невыезде" be "on recognizance not to leave"? --glossologist (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that a term in US English? It is not used in European English. I am not sure what it means.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bail usually implies that the person cannot leave the country/city. "On bail" will probably suffice.Malick78 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on practice in the UK ( actually England, Wales and NI) the most appropriate would be Police Bail. This is when the Police (rather then the Court) release suspect but inform him that he is still under investigation and impose conditions - which almost always include the condition that he attends polic station at the specified date and time. It is less rstrictive then "podpiska" in Ukraine as in the UK the suspect usually can go abroad (in some cases can be asked to surrender passport though) - as long as he actually attends the appointmnt at the Police station as per his conditions. But nevetherless "Police Bail" is the closest translation - based on UK English. Oxy20 (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"on recognizance not to leave" - it might be more accurate but I suspect most people just will not understand what it means. I believe "Police Bail" is the closest and fairly accurate translation. Oxy20 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure we could apply this term from the English law onto the Ukrainian/post-Soviet reality. Such translation is given by the Yandex dictionary, and Google says that it is used in English (in the English translation of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as well), although not very widely. But if it may cause readers not to grasp the meaning we can go with "bail" or "police bail". --glossologist (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think police bail is better than bail, you are welcome to change the article to say that.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, searched Google. "released on police bail" 926K results, "released by the police on bail" 36K results so changing to the usual way of saying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxy20 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Name - "Death of Oksana Makar"

The name has changed been changed from "Murder" to "Death of Oksana Makar" - is there really any doubt as to it being murder? This seems a rather unnecessary change. Is there a possibility that she strangled herself and then set herself on fire? Or that it was accidental? I doubt it.Malick78 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As this was a change that could be predicted to be contentious, I think it should have been done by a requested move. See Wikipedia:Requested moves. I think the correct thing to do would be to move it back to the old name and invite the user who made the move to propose a requested move.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically and pedantically it is probably correct. But "Oksana Makar Case" would be better as this is not really so much about murder - it is more about certain aspects of investigation, how investigation was rported, resulting mass protests. But while technically it is corect to rename - there are bigger problems. What is right though is that there has been no court verdict and in the body we must not have a situation of "found guilty by Wikipedia".Oxy20 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Toddy's idea. "Case" is not a common word in English descriptions of this type, so I'd be against that. In Russian "delo" would be used... but this ain't Russian (or Ukrainian, my knowledge of Ukrainian is weak). Btw, Oxy, we've reported as per sources... WP is not leading anything here. Malick78 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Bigwigs" / "Majors" - lots of issues there from NPOV to basic comprehension of the issue

• To start with "Bigwigs" is not really a buzzword in English - not that known word in fact. May be need to either add a section explaining what "major" is in Ukraine/Russia or even a separate page on that.
• Need to expand more and present a more balanced view including the official version like http://ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/nad-oksanoy-makar-poizdevalis-ne-mazhory.html Many people just do not view them as real majors. From the other hand almost anyone can be a "major" in Ukraine - sometimes even a small bribe will ensure a lenient treatment of the poor offender against even a wealthy victim.(personal experience here).
• Translation wise. "chairwoman in a regional legislature" is "head of district council". And probably need to add that not of the district where the crime was actually comitted.
• Probably need to add info on humble living conditions / professions etc of most suspects.
• But it has to be made clear, even probably more clear then it is now, that public reaction was due to belief that they are indeed "majors".

Oxy20 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The source says "Bigwigs". It may not be 'cool', but it's accurate. "Major" is someone in the army. Were they in the army?
• Btw, If you want to improve the article Oxy, please edit it. Be Bold, and we'll correct things if we disagree. Malick78 (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Children of "Bigwigs" who get away with crime are called "Mazhory" in Ukraine (see the Bloomberg source in the article). To translate "Mazhory" with "Major" without quoting a source is WP:OR by the way.... I would not mind the changing the word "Bigwigs" in "Mazhory" or "Major" (if of cource it will be explained in the article that "Mazhory" is a term in Ukraine that describes "Children of "Bigwigs" who get away with crime". But I fail to see this will improve the article a lot. Seems only a minor semantic change. This article is not about an event in Russia; so we don’t need to explain to the reader that or how this term exist too in Russia. Remember 24 August 1991? Wikipedia works with sources…. Ten points for guessing what WP:weight we should give to your own “personal experience”… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mazhory page just created. Help please in making it longer then its current longer the 5 sentences... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• chairwoman in a regional legislature Oxy, your source says the name of the district. If you want to make the change, by all means make it, provided that you add the source you quoted as a source. It would be helpful to add how far the district is from where the crime was committed in a footnote.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Extended content

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Murder of Oksana Makar → Death of Oksana Makar – So far we have one person dead and three arrested, accused of various things, and charged with intent to murder. Murder is pronounced by a court of law (or coroner equivalent). No such legal pronouncement has YET been made. Hence, we are currently dealing with allegations and suspicions. To name the article "murder" is not to maintain neutrality. Mootros (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose - no one doubts that a murder took place, all sources agree it did, only the culprits are yet to be confirmed. Neutrality therefore not an issue.Malick78 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Exactly nothing has been confirmed. Everything is pure speculation, suspicion, and allegation. Regardless whether there is doubt or not, the usage of this legal terminology murder must not be done without legal pronouncement, otherwise there is no neutrality of your (legal) opinion . Mootros (talk) Oppose - the Interior Ministry has officially classified it as intentional murder.[8]--Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC) "Charges for "attempted murder" is neither "attempted murder", nor "murder" in legal terms. Mootros (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I think you misunderstand.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC) All I can see is an official statement that three people are charged with "attempted murder" not even murder. Which part don't you understand? Mootros (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Before she died it was "attempted murder"[9]. After she died it was reclassified.[10] If you prefer in Russian: После же ее смерти против всех обвиняемых следователи возбудят уголовное дело по ч.2 ст.115 (умышленное убийство) Уголовного кодекса Украины. [11] Maybe premeditated murder is better translation of умышленное убийство than intended or intentional murder?--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's all clear. No doubt about this, as the classification refers to Criminal charges. Nowhere soever it says verdict: "murder". Mootros (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Undecided for now. Yes, I agree the matter is sub judice and no finding of murder has been made. Makar died of burns and smoke inhalation, even if the offenders thought they were disposing of an already-dead body at that time. I can understand the supposition that she could only have been murdered, such was the nature of her injuries. Lastly, I notice that other recent articles use the title "Murder of ..." before legal murder has been established. See, for example, Murder of Shaima Alawadi, Murder of Jane Bashara and Murder of Casey-Lyanne Kearney. I'm holding off casting a !vote until further editors express an opinion (if indeed anyone else is interested). WWGB (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Support with some reservations. I also subscibe to the thought that only a court of law can clarify the position on what has happened including whether it was a murder. At the same time I believe it can stay as murder for now. However in the actual text we have to be careful and not "convict" the suspects before a court of law passed a judgement. I believe some sentances should be rephrased. So that we first say what was done / allegedly done. And then who is suspected of doing it, was charged etc. While I strongly believe in "proven unless found guilty" the other reason I am mildly supportive of renaming is that this thing, in my view is a lot more then just alleged rape / murder. The reason it became so public is because two of the suspects were released on bail and mass-media linkd it to their alleged special status. There are several other controversies in this case some of which are not linked to police invstigations that kept this case in the media spotlight in the Ukraine. So it is a lot more then a murder it is even more then murder and investigation of the murder. Oxy20 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Comment - haven't some of the suspects admitted they murdered her? PS, weren't the victims of the never-found-Jack the Ripper murdered? Malick78 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Comment - what you have probably seen is (illegally leaked video) of alleged confession of only one of them. His confession actually at least partially clears other suspects. It even to a certain degree could be used to cast doubt whether it was a murder (i.e. in English law provocation is a defence to murder that could turn charges into manslaugter even if there was an intention to kill.). In any case that confession, and its validity has not ben tested by courts yet. In Ukraine suspects under pressue regularly confess to crimes they did not commit. There was a "maniac murderer" who was released in March after serving 8 years based on his "confession" - but now they caught the real serial murderer. The issue of false confession / plea is partially safeguarded against in Ukraine by the requirement that courts examine evidence and make the decision even if the defendant pleads guilty. Oxy20 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Comment - This is not a "Jack the Ripper Case". The suspcts have actually been named in the article and are stil alive.Oxy20 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Comment - actually I haven't seen the video, I've just seen multiple sources say that one/some have confessed. As for the Ripper case - it was just to show we don't need a verdict to say a murder has taken place. The fact is almost all media sources call it murder, so there's little reason to be cautious on this point. Malick78 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Confessing to have killed someone is not the same as murder. Murder is a technical legal term, where specific circumstance surrounding the deed are taking into consideration that will be reflected in a verdict. Mootros (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose There's no evidence that the aforementioned testimony was extracted under pressue. Brandmeistertalk 15:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Nobody has suggested this. Mootros (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose but I would approve a rename to Murder case of Oksana Makar. Death of Oksana Makar makes it sounds she died of natural causes or of suicide; something we are sure of she did not do.... I think being neutral is something else then avoiding everything that sounds slightly controversial. To be honest I would be happiest with a rename to: Protests following the murder of Oksana Makar; since the most notable of this case is the protest by the Ukrainian “common man (and woman)” against the police and the Mazhory (or vice versa). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Agree that 'murder case' works much better than 'death' (which implies she wasn't killed by someone) --Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC) It's better than 'death', but doesn't sound great in English :( 'Murder' without 'case' still sounds best to me.Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose - While 'murder' is legal if we are looking at who killed her and what their charge is....she was in fact murdered, regardless of the outcome in the courts. Besides, the decision of a corrupt Ukrainian court shouldnt dictate how an encyclopaedia is put together. --Львівське (говорити) 20:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS From what I read in previous resaerch about the Judicial system of Ukraine Львівське's "corrupt Ukrainian court" statement holds ground; these courts are more like the Lotto Super 7 then the Canadian court system... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The failings of the Ukrainian justice system, and the fear that connections would set the guilty free was one of the reasons for the protests.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Hence I think Protests following the murder of Oksana Makar is the best title for this article... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The murder is notable. Yes the public reaction has made it notable. But an article just about the public reaction would be meaningless without information about the murder, her treatment, etc. The best title is the one we have now.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian billionaire businessman

Is it turning into a promotional page for Akhmetov? I do not think he has to be mentioned at all as this is not a fact relevant to understanding of the case. May be if after the trial we decide to expand and cover fundraising controversied we could mention him - but still with less prominence. As it is - too much prominence to him. Oxy20 (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a referenced fact, his actions led to her receiving better treatment, and possibly prolonged her life. It's not promotional in any sense. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Renat paying her medical treatment is by far the least interesting about this case (here above I see something much more interesting); or it is a PR stunt. Rinat Akhmetov (his common name...) is a famous member of the Party of Regions, that party was in 2011 involved in a case that looks a lot like this one, I do not rule out that he used Oksana Makar to create some good PR for himself or for his party (this is WP:Speculation I know but still...). We must wonder if English Wikipedia should be used to suport Mr. Akhmetov PR moves per WP:soapbox. To be on the safe side I would prefer to leave the info out for now.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

People took the trouble to try to help Oksana. She received the best medical care that could be provided. If it is so terrible that the philanthropist's name be mentioned, then censor out his name. I think it is relevant that she received good medical treatment and that this was not at a hospital in her city.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems relevant and mentioning it is in no way necessarily promoting him.Malick78 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it relevant? Did his involvement create the resonance? Did it reduce it? Is there actuallu evidence that he paid a penny - after all healthcare is free in Ukraine - and in this case it might well have been free. The case is too high profile for doctors to make illegal charges as sometimes happen. I do not think he needs to be mentioned. Not unless this article is expanded to 5 pages. Oxy20 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you leave Ukraine in the 80s? In modern times, the doctors will let your kids die if you do not pay. They do not mind the scandal - it makes it clear to others that they are not bluffing when they ask for money.

She was only notable for the last 3 weeks of her life - she spent most of them in Donetsk, where people tried to save her life.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who knew nothing of this case, and very little about the Ukraine, I think the philanthropist's involvement is quite relevant. It tells me the scope of notability to which this case has attained. It provides evidence that it is indeed a "high profile" much better than if I simply read that "this is a big case in Europe". It caught the eye of some very wealthy and influential people in Europe. I recommend that the information remain in the article.Boneyard90 (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Notability has been clearly established due to sustained coverage in Ukraine as well as some international coverage. That businesmen is from the same city where the victim was treated. The fact that he offered to help does not confer notability. He offered help to many other people (and what he did to many many more I will not mention) but that did not make them notable. Also there are doubts over accuracy as the Local Government also assured that they will cover all costs. http://focus.ua/society/223536/ So there are doubts over whether he actually paid a penny. Oxy20 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to be a burden; but this will add to the confusion who paid for her: The general public donated (according to the victims mother) over 1 million US dollar for the treatment of Makar. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that we put in information from reliable sources, giving the citation. This was why I put in a quotation - but unfortunately someone altered it. But we try not to use opinion pieces (US English - think piece). Readers who do not understand concept of an opinion piece (US think piece), should maybe see old American film set in newspaper Teacher's Pet (1958 film), then maybe they understand it.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved this info about Akhmetov to section "Public response" where it seems to belong since his action was a response. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the old version gave him undue prominence while public also gathered lots of money to pay for treatment and state and local government also assured that treatment would be free. In any case it is response rather then a crucial detail of the treatment. Oxy20 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Friends of the chief suspect in the case of Oksana Makar have collected 100,000 USD for a lawyer

Not sure if this info is needed in the article for now; but Oksana Makar's mother is not the only who was helped by a fundraiser. Info aviable here ((in Ukrainian) for Russian of same article version click above right on "РУС"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two issues - reliability of sources and also proportionality. This is potentially trivial detail. If it is covered then many other things would have to be covered as well. Otherwise NPOV would be severely impaired. May be something to be potentially mentioned when a much bigger article is written. Oxy20 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

$100,000 may be trivial to oligarchs, but it is not trivial to the suspects.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In the article 100000UAH mentioned not USD. It did not receive much coverage and based on rumours so at most I would be suspicious over thruthfullness of it. In any case in so high profile case defemdants do need good lawyers to ensure justice rather then revenge is done. In the west defence teams sometimes cost even millions to the taxpayer and this is perceived necessary. Oxy20 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the Russian version says 100,000 UAH (roughly £8,000 or $12,000).--Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed C-class for lack of specific coverage. There should be some background, if known. The article does not say what Makar's job is, how (if) she previously knew the accused suspects, or how she came to be in the location where she was assaulted. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think whether some of us like it or not we do have to cover her job and how they met. Alternatively keep the article deliberately small. Just enougph for people to understand why it became notable ("Bigwick"/Mazhory issue) but not much other detail. After the court hearing it will have to be expanded though. Oxy20 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxy

• I have no idea what job she had, or even if she had a job. If you have seen any reliable sources saying that she hsd a job and what it was, you are welcome to add the cited information to the article.
• We sort of know how she met them. But the evidence is tainted - the barmaid is a friend of the wife of one of the suspects. The version I saw, was that just like most other pretty girls in Europe, some of the time Oksana cadged drinks off guys in bars. That was how she met them. I agree that that information should go in the article, complete with the information from reliable sources about the relationship between the barmaid and the suspects. We know that the barmaid seemed to regard Oksana as a girl who sometimes had sex with guys. (In other words, Oksana was just like most girls all over Europe.)

So, if you have additions to the article, please make them giving citations to reliable sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry have to strongly disagree on this. I might have left Ukraine a long time ago but I have relatives, friends there. Know lots of girls of about that age. No, it is not normal for Ukrainian girls to pester men for drinks. And no to return sex for such favours is also not normal in Ukraine. One of my neigbhours in Ukraine (I still own a house there) is a family of alcoholics. They have three daughters. They have criminals as their boyfriends. But even from that background they have quite permament partners. So please do not insult Ukranian girls by such missleading statements. Oxy20 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

My references to her "job" were made on the basis of the following: http://www.segodnya.ua/news/14351882.html http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?oksana_makar_imeet_sudimosti_za_prostitutsiyu&objectId=201535&lang=ru http://ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/miliciya-neskolko-raz-lovila-oksanu-makar-za-prostituciyu-smi.html http://gazeta.ua/articles/life/_oksana-makar-hodila-na-trasu-zaroblyati-prostitucieyu-susidka/428196 http://kp.ua/daily/260312/331047/

So the issue did receive quite a coverage. I know in Russia / Ukraine many consider it bad manners to maention it. But in English speaking countries the custom is to mention all facts that could be of interest about victim - good or bad. Oxy20 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is for the UK/US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand; so, although I like them very much, what people in Russia/Ukraine or Rwanda consider bad manners we should not care about (as editors of English Wikipedia). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed New Section on Background of the Victim and Suspects

Victim:

Oksana’s grandparents are respectable members of the community, and in particular her maternal grandfather is an award-winning teacher of Chemistry.[1] When Oksana was little her father was imprisoned for drug dealing and her mother was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years.[1] She spent a significant part of her childhood in orphanage from which she was running away regularly.[1] She only completed six years of schooling which affected her employability.[1] It was reported in the media that in the year prior to her death she was prosecuted three times, including for prostitution.[2]

Suspects:

Yevgeny Krasnoshchok (main suspect) left home at 17, worked in various low rank physical jobs.[3] He lived in a hostel with his partner and one year old daughter.[3] He remained in police custody since his arrest on 11th of March.

Maxim Prisyazhnyuk worked as a lawyer in the department of culture of Nikolaev City Council. [4] His adopted mother prior to retirement in 2009 was a head of Yelanetsk district council. [5] Yelanetsk district is located about 40 miles south from Nikolayev and has a population of 16,000. He was arrested on 11th of March 2012, released on police bail and rearrested following public protests.

Artem Pogasyan. It was initially reported that his father worked in the past as a senior official in the district prosecutor’s office in Nikolayev. [6] According to the police his father worked as a manual labourer and died in January 2012 and his mother is a librarian. [5] He was arrested on 11th of March 2012, released on police bail and rearrested following public protests.

References:

[1] http://fakty.ua/147318-malenkuyu-ksyushku-vyshvyrnuli-iz-semi-kak-kotenka

[2] http://www.segodnya.ua/news/14351882.html http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?oksana_makar_imeet_sudimosti_za_prostitutsiyu&objectId=201535&lang=ru http://ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/miliciya-neskolko-raz-lovila-oksanu-makar-za-prostituciyu-smi.html http://gazeta.ua/articles/life/_oksana-makar-hodila-na-trasu-zaroblyati-prostitucieyu-susidka/428196 http://kp.ua/daily/260312/331047/

[3] http://gazeta.ua/articles/scandals-newspaper/_mama-vignala-zhenyu-z-domu-v-17-rokiv/431070

[4] http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/zhena-nikolavevskogo-nasilnika-devchonka-sama-vinovata-chego-poshla-s-nimi-na-kvartiru.d?id=1642018

[5] http://ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/nad-oksanoy-makar-poizdevalis-ne-mazhory.html

[6] http://uainfo.censor.net.ua/news/12603-mazhora-pogosyana-za-iznasilovanie-oksany-makar-dazhe-ne-zaderzhivali.html

Comments Welcome before this goes live Oxy20 (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For a background it all looks good. If you don't know how to format references, just provide article titles, works (newspaper title), author, and date of publication, and I take care of it, or if you feel ambitious, see WP:REFBEGIN. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a crime, not a biography. Details of the victim's family are irrelevant, as is her employment status. We are not here to conduct a case before the courts, just to report facts that are relevant to the topic: her murder. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As shown in list of examples in a previous section, it is completely normal to mention a few details about the victim. In addition, this murder became notable because of protests and demonstrations by people in Ukraine. Part of the issue for the demonstrators was the fear that well connected people would be allowed to get away with this crime. Therefore facts about whether the suspects really were privileged people is relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The background, which forms a setting of the crime are all relevant. Without the background, the reader doesn't find out until the "Protest" section that two of the suspects are connected to politicians, but doesn't go in detail. The Background section explains much better the depth of political influence that some of the suspects had. The only possible irrelevant part of the section that I can see is perhaps about her grandparents. That would seem a bit removed from the victim's circumstances. So if WWGB wants to remove that sentence, I will not object. BUT - I still don't understand how the victim and suspects knew each other. It doesn't say how they came to be together. Did the suspects kidnap her and take her to the apartment? Tie her up and carry her away? There's still some holes in the account. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I included her grandparents because she lived in a flat with her mother and granmother prior to the attack. Also to present a balanced coverage. Oxy20 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads in the current section Background: "She was a dumb bimbo and we are surprissed she was not raped before...." This curent section seems to conflict with #3 of WP:SOAP. An edit of mine in the article about the current President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was reverted because "If I am not mistaken this article is about Viktor not Oleksandr. Removing unrelated information". So why is this personal stuff about Oksana Makar allowed in this article... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"When Oksana Makar was very young her father was imprisoned for dealing drugs and her mother was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years". The Background-section now reads. This seems completely irrelevant.... Are we trying to proof her judgment was clouded because of her parents? She was rapped, this case is not about her stealing things... (just like the article about the Ukrainian President was not about his son neither is this article about Makar's parents). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you must be the only one who makes the connection. You are making assumptions and conclusions when none are provided. The individuals involved in a crime, both victim and perpetrators is relevant. I don't know anything about this case. To me, even if she was an active prostitute (and I don't know if she was or not), she did not deserve to be raped, nor murdered. Whether she was a criminal in the past, or a prostitute in the present, she deserves justice.

As far as her parents, there are direction connections in her life. Her parents' imprisonment led to Oksana's stay in an orphanage, which led to her escape attempts, which led to her low education level, which led to difficulties in finding steady employment. The only thing a reader may infer (but which is not stated), is that her difficulty in finding employment to support herself may have led to her to make choices that led to prosecution for crimes. That is all. She still deserves justice, and the interested reader still deserves to know facts. Her background seems to have relevance to the circumstance of the crime, but I can only infer this from the debate it has generated. It still does not state how the victim knew the suspects.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the article is outlined like Shooting of Trayvon Martin (that article has information (like: Martin lived with his mother and older brother in Miami Gardens, Florida. On the day he was shot, he was visiting his father and his father's fiancée at her townhome in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida) that also seems irrelevant to me but not to the Wikipedia consensus it seems) the information now in the article seems to belong there. Sorry if somebody felt insulted by my last remarks on this talkpage. I was not trying to do so but was trying to create a discussion in a bold way. PS I did not read in the past section Background: "She was a dumb bimbo and we are surprissed she was not raped before...."; but I was pointing out that somebody who wanted to could... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• "but I was pointing out that somebody who wanted to could..." and probably someone will. But that is not a justification for withholding information that usually is considered relevant. Taking for example the fact that her mother and father were jailed. Some people might think less of the victim, but some might actually think that her own trouble with the law are explained by her background and therefore will think higher of her then otherwise they would. It is not our job to steer people to think one way or another. We should present the facts that are relevant. The issue was widely reported so it does appear very relevant. It is also customary at least in the UK/US to provide some information on the victim. Oxy20 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence I outlined this article like: Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This Wikipedia is for the UK/US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand so I agree with Oxy20 (now). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Justification for inclusion of the Background: For suspects it has to be included. This case gained press coverage to a large extent due to mass protests that were caused by perceived privileged background of the suspects. It is almost as central to this case as the murder itself. I suppose few would argue against that. For the victim:

• It would be strange to provide background information on the suspects yet remain silent over victim.
• It is customarily at least in the UK/US to provide some background information about the victim even when not much provided about suspects.
• Her background was widely reported. Why should we be cherry picking information? Can article be NPOV if we ignore widely reported parts because we do not like them?
• Her prosecution for prostitution is something that is relevant when allegations of rape are made. Note we clearly stated the reported allegations against all three suspects including rape before they were convicted. It would be very unbalanced to leave something like this that has been heavily reported and could prove relevant.
• With regard to her parents – it explains why she was in orphanage. Which in turn might explain to some (though I do not think it is for us to state causality) why she had low education and was involved in some law breaking. If we omit that – the story will not be complete – the reader will not know why she went to orphanage. The reader might wonder – did her parents die?, etc. We should not be putting a reader on the hook – we should provide complete self-contained coverage.
• Also it surprises me how people who were cutting out information on her parents were quite happy to leave information on her grandparents - which would appear to me under their logic should be even less relevant.
• With regard to her parents – yes some people might draw more negative opinion about her. But some might think more of her then they would think otherwise. If we were to have information on perfect grandparents and granddaughter with problems with the law – some people would really think lower of her then with her full background.
• Also I did not list all the convictions of her father, mother and stepfather as considered full details not needed - just the minimum sufficient to present the widely reported issue and to ensure self-contained coverage.

Oxy20 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To Yulia Romero and Oxy 20, and any other editors that had an interest in this discussion. I just want to say that I am pleased this discussion can be brought to an amicable conclusion after some open discussion among concerned editors. Please excuse me if my comments ever lacked the assumption of good faith.Boneyard90 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought no bad of you. One of the tings I like about Ukrainians is that they are not easily offended... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How they met

Yes the current story is not really self-contained as it states that she was atacked in the flat owned by one of the suspects but does not explain how they met. Here we enter into difficulties because there are different stories flowing around.

I think the one that is probaly more likely correct - though someone might challenge me on that - is that they met in a pub had some drinks there and then all four went to the flat owned by one of the suspects (Maxim Prisyazhnyuk) where this all has occurred.

There are accounts of people who work in that pub, but it has been alleged that at least one of them is a friend of wife of one of the suspects. But it appears that other employees of the pub were giving a similar story http://gazeta.ua/ru/articles/scandals-newspaper/_oksana-makar-vypila-butylku-piva-i-20-grammov-vodki/428152  : Namely: The victim was regularly asking men for some small money or drinks. In the evening in question she approached the suspects and they were initially hostile towards her and sent her off - but then actually shared drinks. It was also alleged that on the way to the flat they purchased condoms from either a tiny shop or kiosk with the implication that victim knew about it - but obviously only after court hearing any such inferences can be drawn.

There is also another version. According to it Maxim Prisyazhnyuk was in love with her but she rejected him. In order to have revenge he persuaded the other two to befriend the victim and bring her into his flat. He then raped and murdered her in order to have his revenge. http://kp.ua/daily/220312/330430//

So it looks like it is safe to say the following: "Oksana Makar met at least two of her attackers in pub "Rybka" in Mikolaiv and they then went together to Maxim Prisyazhnyuk's flat. Oxy20 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good. I would add: "There are conflicting accounts on the details of how the suspects and victim knew each other and what occurred on the evening of the murder, but all sources agree that Makar met at least two...." - Does that sound acceptable, factual, and NPOV? Boneyard90 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes sounds reasonable probaly better to say "it is not disputed" rather then "all sources agree" as there are sources that mentions things so vaguely that can not say they agree. But not disputed is certainly correct.

I think this could be used as a refernce as covers a full story and mentions the revenge element as well. http://obozrevatel.com/crime/94825-ona-tak-borolas-za-zhizn.htm

And this is victim's telephone interview in which she says she remembers the pub and remembers how they were walking with the view of being guests (presumingly of one of the suspects ) and then she does not remember much apart from how they were trying to strangle her. http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/intervyu-oksany-makar-ya-obyazatelno-vyzhivu-ya-budu-staratsya-ya-zdes-nuzhna.d?id=1641635

Oxy20 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not much experience with editing Wikipedia articles about murder cases (as you might have deducted....) but Oxy20's last ideas seems the way to go yes. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oleg Yunakov made a number of edits, in my view of questionable merit today with no discussion. In particular he added. "Maxim Prisyazhnyuk aledgedly knew Oksana before they met on March 8th" - well it is not central to understand the key elements of the case and this assertion has been denied by victims mother as well at least on some occasions. I just do not see merit in cluttring the aticle with such non-key facts that are quite disputable and probably untrue. See link below where her mother states that the victim did not know any of them. http://kp.ua/daily/190312/329944/ I understand that on line has been that she knew one of them and the attack was rejected love revenge - but there is no evidence that this is even official line of investigation nor that it is this story that secured media attention and there are strong indications it is f alse line anyway. Now some false lines (like one of the suspects father being prosecuted) that did affect public case have to be included. There is no evidence this story was significant in the case to date. Oxy20 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe it's an unimportant fact? If so, why? With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all it is not a fact. Even victim's mother denied it - at least on some occasions (references provided above). Secondly do you have any eveidence that it is important? For example the fact that father of one of the suspects was a prosecutor now looks very dubious, but it is clearly important to mntion that it was reported because this explain why public thought there is an abuse of power going on. With the statement in question - to me it is just one of many trivial reported speculations that had no major effect on the case. If you think otherwise - please argue your case. If it is left then we will have to additionally clutter the page with the statement that victim's mother herself denied it. Oxy20 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Her mother might not know all the details. It might be important as the entire event might look differently and it might be less of a coincidence. But let's give other people to comment as well. I honestly don't have much interest to discuss and edit this article. The only reason that I came to add a little content to the article was to balance your edits on English wiki that you have started doing right after you agreed that Russian Wikipedia should copy info from the English one. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 17:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There are people who do not undestand Russian here. They kept mentioning that article is not complete - it was not clear how she ended up in th flat - walked there or was kidnapped on the steet. Hence I rpovided that section after discussion. Note I fully discissed the version that has been put that it might actually be a revenge attack. But obviusly we only want to put disputed (and probably incorrct) things with explanantion of different vrsions if they are absolutely central to the case. Father - prosecutor is one of the most obvious such examples. Ok, lets see what others think. Oxy20 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your initial reason to remove some content from Russian wiki was that it might offend Oksana Makar. It was blocked. And then you add that according to some newspapers she might have been a prostitute. To me it's a little strange that all your changes are meant to show only one bad side of the victim. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

She was dead by the time I even knew about Wikipedia article about her so how could she have been offended? Russian version was far too detailed and grossly graphical and was reporting too much trivia that was in dispute. Russian vesion was also stating allegations as absolute facts and was non-encyclopeadic in contents and style. This has led to full deletion of contents. As you are fully aware the decision to delete contents was made at senior level and clearly not by me. I see no point in discussing Russian version any further here apart from once again expressing hope that you will not try to turn this article into wha was deleted by buerocrats on Russian Wiki. Oxy20 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean as it was the only argument for the content removal (that it might be inappropriate for Oksana's reputation). With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No it was not the only arguement. As far as victim is concerned it was determined that graphical detailed descreption of where she had burns and to what extent is not for encyclopeadia. There were also grave concerns about the contents and style of the article overall being non-encyclopeadic. As well as concerns that all the details of the case i.e. how it all happened were described in much detail even though much of it undr dispute. Also I exprssed concens that the language really was such that constituted a verdict by wikipedia rather then report of allegations. If you want to take it further the place to discuss it is with administrators and burecrats of Russian wiki. And not here. If after discssions you still disagree with their decision you could raise arbitrage. I see no point discussing it here. Oxy20 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not the greatest speller but.... leave your own spelling of a city's name on the doorstep before entering Wikipedia....

Extended content

I do not want to see this again..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 03:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC) We have rules for this: we are only allowed to use cities common English names for consistency within this article + others. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 03:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC) You really must learn to calm down, or at least phrase your wording to make it look like you're calm, and not like a demand or an order. Nobody's kidding you, I'm sure it was a simple mistake, as there are those two spellings, plus I found that "Nikolaev" is an alternate spelling of the same place. Yes, we all want consistency and the correct (accepted) spelling. I don't think anyone's pushing an agenda if the "wrong" spelling gets copied from a source.Boneyard90 (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC) These transliteration from Ukrainian spellings of the names of Ukrainian cities are imposed on people by those from far away lands. (The native language in half of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and in the other half is Russian.) Normal people call the city Nikolayev or Nikolaev when writing in English. You cannot blame people for getting an alien spelling they never use wrong. You should blame the people who impose this rubbish. Let's get rid of it.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Comment on beating up others for spelling errors: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (St Mathew's Gospel, chapter 7) The very editor who criticised his brother editor for using a so-called wrong transliteration of Миколаїв, himself made errors saying "cities" when he mean "city's". "Cities" is nominative or accusative plural. "City's" is genitive singular.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Please don't waste our time with pointless bible quotes. And don't be a dick by correcting others' grammar so ostentatiously (and by naming them in the edit summary: one could correct your grammar above, too, for example). This page is for discussion of the article.Malick78 (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC) You are absolutely right. I am sometimes a dick. And you are absolutely right that I make spelling mistakes, grammar errors, sometimes make delete the wrong word... The whole point of this section was that one editor wanted to beat up on someone who made a typing/spelling/lettering mistake. It would have been better if the section had never been started. Maybe it was wrong of me to point out that all of us make mistakes. If you understood the quote, you would have seen this. But English is a very hard language...--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I'm an atheist and didn't particularly see the need to bring christianity into this. Especially while the writer was being unchristian ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I think your statement is too strong. And actually it is not all set in stone. From your link "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Note that it is often - not always. Then it explains why "because it is recognizable and natural". Well Nikolaev has 12M Google hits and Mykolaiv has 1.6M. It was Nikolaev(Nikolayev) to th victim and it is Nikolaev(Nikolayev) for the suspects as well as to most protestors as protests were mainly in Eastern Ukraine. If you count only hits returned by News sites (assuming news sites are reputable sources and the rest are not) then you do get more hits for Mykolaiv - but the number of such hits is just 65. So what we have is 65 reputable hits vs 12M overall hits in Google. I would say Mikolaiv, despite oficial pushing - and they love to change their own language, Russian or even English in Ukraine by government directions and laws - is not actually that well established as an exclusive or even main name for the city. So while we do use Mykolaiv - I do not thin it is so cast in stone as you state. We could have argued for and used Nikolaev. In fact I think even if we refer to it as Mykolaiv we need to state the altrnative spellings as well. Oxy20 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It is getting even more winded - now looks like mother of the victim is well conncted

The victim's mother stated that "what helped us is that we had close connections in TV and the case received coverage and people gathered protesting". http://kp.ua/daily/190312/329872/

Now I think this is very significant - as it actually explains why there were such mass protests. And why the connections of the suspects mights have been overstated (as many people now lougph at suggstions that they are true Bigwicks / Mazhory - though in Ukraine just a relatively small amount ofmoney is needed to buy the police anyway. Oxy20 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This one case is certainly showing me multiple sides of Ukraine.Boneyard90 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Information about the connections of victim's family within the media is added to Public response section references to the interview victim's mother gave. Her mother stated "Нам помогло то, что дочка моей кумы работает на центральном телевидении, и происшедшие получило широкую огласку. После чего люди и собрались на улице с акциями протестов." Which translates: "What helped us is that Oksana Makar's godsister works on central television (meaning country-wide TV station as opposed to local of which there are many) and the event received wide coverage. After that people started protesting. "

Also as connections and privelleged background is central to the case and in the background we tried to cover information relevant to connections that suspects have (or might have) I suppose we have to show the same for the victim. Current description of the victim paints the picture that she is from a very deprived background. But it looks like it is not quite the case. And the media connections surely are very relevant as they explain the widespread initial coverage (and we do not even have to draw this infrences ourselves - victim's mother has herself stated them.)

So propose to add to victim's background something like: "Oksana Makar’s grandfather is an award winning of Chemistry and her aunt is a doctor. Oksana Makar’s godsister works at one of the main TV stations in Ukraine." Oxy20 (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem nentioning the godsister's work, especially if that assisted in gaining media attention. However, starting to delve in to grandparents and aunts seems way out of line. This is not a family tree. Their role has not been shown to be pivotal. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WWGB.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Location of Yelanetsk

To me this fact doesn't seem to be relevant. If someone disagrees - let's please discuss what is the importance of such fact. Thanks. Oleg Y. (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This case is really about connections and alleged abuse of power due to those connections. It could be rasonably assumed that acting head of district council would have connections with the police in her own district. Whether a three year since retired head of district council that is located tens of miles away could actually be reasonably assumed to have such connections is for the reader to decide. We should provide that inormation to the reader. Otherwise the reader could assume that she actually headed the district where the offence was comitted which is not the case.Oxy20 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Oxy20, based on the newly provided information. Also, I'd like to know where Luch is, and why was Oksana buried there? Boneyard90 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Luch - is a modern village about 25 miles from Mikolaiv where the victim resided with her grandmother in a flat. Her gradfather also lived in the same block of flats but not in the same flat. Her mother actually lived in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, prior to the attack - but I would imagine would still regard Luch as her domicile (permamnent home place). The reference for all this is the same as for Yelenetsk distance from Mykolaiv. http://gazeta.ua/ru/articles/scandals-newspaper/_oksana-makar-vypila-butylku-piva-i-20-grammov-vodki/428152 Oxy20 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Makar Murder Edits

(Moved by Oleg Yunakov from his talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxy20 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oleg Yunakov,

I noticed you are making lots of edits including deletion of other editors work.

A great deal of work is being done to reach consnsus and many changes are discussed to talk pages.

Prior to deleting anything it would be helpful if you could familiarise yourslf with the relevant discussions on talk pages and if you are doing something that seems to go against previously stablished consensus or something that others might find questionable please at the very least provide justification on talk pages. This applies to adding new material as well.

Oxy20 (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (Original edit to confirm the owner of the edit).

I am glad that you have finally noticed that I do some changes and would like to see a little less arrogance. It would have been better if you had noticed it earlier. As you also might have noticed, I was the one who created the initial article on Oksana Makar Russian wiki and it was translated by other members to be used in Ukrainian Wiki, so I do have some understanding about the subject. BTW your block on Ukrainian wiki might indicate that someone else might need to rethink about his/her work style. Any deletion was discussed prior to the deletion so no need to try to use it as a negative argument. With over 10k edits on Wikipedia and half thousand articles, I allegedly might have some knowledge on how to work with Wikipedia in general as well. So let's not start some unneeded discussion, avoid potential trolling and work on the article. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Oleg Y. (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You should think about working on those people skills.Boneyard90 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I could phrase it differently - was overstressed from what I saw from this user over the past few weeks on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia, where I tried not to react. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention that you are the creator of the original, now fully replaced and blocked, article on Russian Wiki. It mght be relevant to state that your article on Russian Wikipedia was blocked by burecrats as it was deemed to be a tabloid-style mess rather then encyclopaedic style article. They replaced it with a stub article and current view is that they will translate English version as their main article. Also they had to lock the page from editing to ensure the previous tabloid-style is not recreated. I hope we do not have to apply for protection for this article.Oxy20 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you don't know, Russian Wiki article was approved by several Administrators, before you and another user came (with no prior changes on Wiki) and started to forcefully try to remove it. It was one of the Administrators of Russian Wikipedia who took Russian article and made a Ukrainian article from it which is currently freely available. Russian article will be added as well - it's just a meter of time. Oleg Y. (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt there will be a proper article in Russian. But it will be proper article: encyclopaedic - both in contents and style. They are actually considering translating English version. Removal of your article was made by buecrats and now several administrators are working on it. Please do not turn this article into what you created on Russian Wiki. Oxy20 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not my article - it has tens of editors, I created an initial one, which you tried to delete and failed - article was left. It's still present right now, so saying "Removal of your article" is incorrect. Then you have tried to delete it on English Wikipedia and it was also left. Then tried to delete on Ukrainian Wikipedia and it was left there as well. Please read about what is trolling. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that discussions in this tone is appropriate. I did not nominate the articles in Russian and Ukrainian for deletion - though exprssed support for the motions. Here I withdrew nomination. You are now saying the tabloid-style overbloated article that was deleted is not just your work. Well when editing tis one just do not try to make it look like what had to be deleted and replaced by a stub in Russian Wiki. Oxy20 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Plase review "How they met" section and provide comments thereOxy20 (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. With regards, Oleg. Y. (talk). 16:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Public response - section

In my view after certain recent edits the section is over bloated and poorly worded as well. It might be worthwhile to note that the editor was actually the author of the initial, extremely long article on Russian Wiki that was deleted for being more suitable for tabloid press then encyclopaedia in style and contents. (Though he now claims other editors also responsible for that)

What is now captured in the “Public response” section is response of politicians and Z-listers rather then public response. This was a hot case - and make no mistake – every man and his dog commented on it. If comments of every politician and Z lister is reported separately could make it into many many pages. However this case is not what various low ranking politicians and Z list (non-)celebrities said. I would imagine the need to report the reaction of the most senior people individually and the rest could be very briefly summarised.

I just can not see why the statement below (and this is just an example) was singled out of hundreds of similar or even stronger worded statements by various Z-listers. the wording of that is also very poor.

“An Honored Artist of Ukraine Rudnitskaya Angelica said she doesn't not believe in the execution of President Yanukovych order to ensure a full and impartial investigation of rape Oksana Makar. She said: "If the law enforcement system is not able to protect its citizens and punish those responsible, the people themselves must all available legal means to force her to do it"“

Oxy20 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is bloated. Let us leave it as it is for the time being.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sentence needs rewording

Maybe I am a bit dim, but I find the following sentence hard to understand. Please can it be reworded, and be given citations.

Protests to get fair judgement, funds gathering and blood donation continued after the arrest as well.

I think part of the problem is that it links unrelated things. That the public continued to mount public demonstrations demanding justice both before and after the arrests. That people collected money and gave blood for Oxana's treatment (which is not obviously connected to the arrests at all). But we know that other people collected money to help the suspects as well. So perhaps the sentence needs the type of careful wording with citation of sources that Oxy is so good at.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is one of Oleg Yunakov edits today... While what it says is true it probably belongs to the corresponding section rather then summary. In any case subsequent protests were of smaller scale as far as I am aware. It is not a simple matter of rewording to make it look rasonable - it actually would require a lot of work and not sure what it would add. More is not necessarily better. The main thing is to capture main points rather then all points. Oxy20 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

New Editors Expected Shortly...

Oleg Yunakov has just drummed for support on Russian Wiki inviting them to move here (Russian article was replaced by a stub and locked). If his call is answered and it turns into something like Russian Wiki then I suppose might need to apply for protection / invoke some other conflct resolution. On Russian Wiki his viwes did have a significant support but then burecrats had to intefere as the article was not encyclopeadic neither in contents nor style so it was replaced by a stub in its entirety.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9E%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8B_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80#.D0.98.D0.BD.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B2.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B8

Oxy20 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The main TV channels In Ukraine have names....

yet the sources that say that Oksana Makar’s godsister works at one of the main TV stations in Ukraine don't mention at what station she works.... That seems strange to me... Was it any of the bellow...? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources report what Oksana Makar's mother stated. Her mother, quite reasonably, chose not to state the name of TV station. Her mother stated "Нам помогло то, что дочка моей кумы работает на центральном телевидении, и происшедшие получило широкую огласку. После чего люди и собрались на улице с акциями протестов." Which translates: "What helped us is that Oksana Makar's godsister works on central television (meaning country-wide TV station as opposed to local of which there are many) and the event received wide coverage. After that people started protesting. "

So I included what she stated - we can not atribute to her what she did not state - for example name of the channel.

Oxy20 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the article not read "According to Makar's mother Makar’s godsister works at one of the main TV stations in Ukraine"? I found 1 source a bit shaky to make such a bold statement.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed People section. Public response section always stated that and continues to do so.Oxy20 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

that is why they ridicule WP. cause we keep having and protecting mere bullshit on formal grounds( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.1.174 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To avoid further reverting

14 серпня суд допитав двох подруг Макар. Одна дівчина розповіла, що востаннє спілкувалася з Оксаною 4 роки тому. Але, незважаючи на це, однаково дала негативну характеристику загиблої.

За її словами, дівчина відрізнялася легкою поведінкою, часто гуляла із хлопцями.

Адвокат обвинувачуваних поставила запитання, чи могла Макар вільно знайомитися з 2-3 хлопцями, на що свідок відповіла ствердно.

Також вона сказала, що в загиблої були важкі стосунки з матір'ю — вона часто тікала від неї й приходила додому до подруг.

Захист обвинувачуваних поцікавився у свідка, чи займалася Макар проституцією. Та відповіла, що багато раз чула про це, але сама стверджувати не може.

Друга подруга Макар давала показання за закритими від громадськості дверима.

Свідок розповів, що загибла займалася проституцією, навіть груповою проституцією, у тому числі на очах у свідка.[12]

"The witness testified that the deceased have been a prostitute, even serving groups of clients, including instances that occured in front of the witness herself".95.132.242.31 (talk)

Oksana Makar

I think that someone should provide more detailed and adequate description of life of Oksana Makar based on this source ("They trough away little Ksusha like a cat"), including for example this: Пять лет назад Татьяна забрала дочку в Киев и пристроила к мужчине, который, как утверждают родные Оксаны, на 12 лет старше девушки. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

She was burning in the blanket whole night, being set on the fire by these guys. Right? If not, please explain.My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the blanket was smouldering all night.

If you think she was tortured, please copy the sentences from whichever article you base this on into the talk page with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a very common situation when people ask that article must use exactly the same wording as source. There is no such requirement. What we should do is to fairly summarize content. Putting someone alive and concsious on slow fire is torture. I thought this is obvious. But I usually do not mind not using any specific word if someone objects. All right. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

We are not asking that the article use exactly the same wording. But setting fire to someone is not the same as torturing them. If the young men has stood and watched her burn for hours, adding more petrol when necessary, that would be torturing her - but I have seen nothing that indicates that. The versions I read, had them setting fire to what they thought was a corpse and leaving.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, let's not use word "torture". Setting on a fire a person who was alive but they "thought was a corpse", according to their claims ... My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Another rape case in Mykolaiv Oblast that lead to more than 500 people attacking a district police station

This is all not related to Oksana Makar ((but I think) the fact that people in Mykolaiv Oblast have seem to become so quick in action to defend one of their own might have something to do with the huge public protests in Mykolaiv after Makar's rape (a sociological "Sovok" barrier was broken in March 2012?); but I can not proof that). Another rape case in Mykolaiv Oblast lead to more than 500 people attacking a district police station (see here and here). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I created Wiki-article Rape of Iryna Krashkova about this case today. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

picture

i am not sure if pictures are allowed to be displayed like this, she wansnt a known figure in soceity just a normal girl--Crossswords (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictures like this are 100% normal.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

says who? please give me any proof i want to learn more what is allowed in wikipedia and what isnt. Are there any basic path articles should follow?--Crossswords (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE, part of the Manual of Style, does not prevent use of the image of the deceased, unless it is shocking. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just drop the issue Crosswords, there are no guideline saying that images of victims are not allowed.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

German Sources

This article contains several citations of a chinese-owned website called "Berliner Tageszeitung". This is - unless suggested - not a newspaper, and it is not really notable (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Berliner_Tageszeitung). This website seems to publish Russia-friendly news to influence opinion in Germny, but is not noted by a significant audience. The formerly editor-in-chief reportedly has lived in the Ukraine, so maybe he is interested in the case, but his opinion is surely not a notable source. I delete the (wrong titled) Weblink in the end, this just a poor pamphlete. As I do not know the case entirely, I do not edit the rest of the article, but I strongly recommend also to remove all other citations of Berliner Tageszeitung. --Hyperdieter (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Convictions

There are references to a trial beginning, to the prosecutor calling for sentences, but no reference to a conviction or sentence. Have the trials actually concluded?125.236.202.112 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

New Eastern Europe (DISCLAIMER: unverified credibility) quotes the book "Kill the Dragon. Ukrainian Revolutions (Czarne 2016, in Press). Originally in Polish, translated by the author" (again I don't know if it even exists):

"Yevgeny Krasnoshchok was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Oksana Makar. Maxim Prisyazhnyuk got 15 years and Artem Pogasyan 14."

In an interview with the mother of Pogasyan, she claims he was not directly involved in murder or rape, only guilty of accessory after the fact:

"Larisa takes another document out of her bag. “Artem’s semen was not found in her or on the bed. Krasnoshchok admitted that he was the one who raped and strangled the girl. My son was sentenced to 14 years in prison for a murder and rape he didn’t commit. He did wrong, I am not saying anything else; he should have stopped the murderer. He was afraid. Krasnoshchok wanted to eliminate him too. He helped carry out the body. He didn’t go into the basement; he doesn’t know what had happened there. He was dazed from the alcohol. People asked him afterwards why he didn’t go to the police. And who in our country would go voluntarily? I told him myself: ’Give police precincts a wide berth; you may not leave them on your own two feet’. My friend was beaten by policemen to death. The appeal didn’t do anything. Where am I supposed to look for justice?”"

FWIW. --79.202.110.26 (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Murder of Oksana Makar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120402211838/http://www.pr-inside.com/de/oksana-makar-eine-prinzessin-wu-r3116624.htm to http://www.pr-inside.com/de/oksana-makar-eine-prinzessin-wu-r3116624.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317183359/http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/zhena-nikolavevskogo-nasilnika-devchonka-sama-vinovata-chego-poshla-s-nimi-na-kvartiru.d?id=1642018 to http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/zhena-nikolavevskogo-nasilnika-devchonka-sama-vinovata-chego-poshla-s-nimi-na-kvartiru.d?id=1642018
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422074837/http://uainfo.censor.net.ua/news/12603-mazhora-pogosyana-za-iznasilovanie-oksany-makar-dazhe-ne-zaderzhivali.html to http://uainfo.censor.net.ua/news/12603-mazhora-pogosyana-za-iznasilovanie-oksany-makar-dazhe-ne-zaderzhivali.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317135633/http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/intervyu-oksany-makar-ya-obyazatelno-vyzhivu-ya-budu-staratsya-ya-zdes-nuzhna.d?id=1641635 to http://reporter.delfi.ua/news/reporter/intervyu-oksany-makar-ya-obyazatelno-vyzhivu-ya-budu-staratsya-ya-zdes-nuzhna.d?id=1641635
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123085908/http://en.for-ua.com/news/2012/06/22/161306.html to http://en.for-ua.com/news/2012/06/22/161306.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103160847/http://en.for-ua.com/news/2012/10/30/161446.html to http://en.for-ua.com/news/2012/10/30/161446.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)