Talk:Snuff film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Snuff movie)

About this page[edit]

In most films such as documentaries that involve killing, the scenes were cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:4516:385:7B96:3117 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I added more definitions[edit]

After having my contributions about a California Video from snopes.com deleted, I searched the internet and came up with many definitions of snuff, the majority of which required a SEX ACT. I added these along with several others, including Mel Gibson's The Passion (which I found on 3 different sites on a Yahoo! Search. I never found the original definition, but I left it in hopes it's original authors will find citation. Who really has any authority to define a pop-culture term anyway?

These definitions seem to be the best I've come across because there really is no true authority (or at least that I could find) on what is a genuine snuff film. One says it must be produced for "comercial purposes" and another will say it must involve some sort of sex act while someone else will go so far to consider "Happy Slapping" snuff. Even the definition itself is an urban legend...

Does anyone have access to a Dictionary?[edit]

Since when must a Snuff film have to be produced explicitly for commercial entertainment purposes in order to be called a "Snuff film"?

Can someone please site a credible and legitimate source where in order for it to meet the criteria for a snuff film it must to produced be "for commercial purposes"...

Possible links[edit]

Perhaps it should be mentioned in the computer game Vampire: The Masquerade, that one of the links you follow through is a falsely filmed snuff film? On that note, I feel that the section on such films and popular culture is in need of fleshing out...

I just put the link to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. This was a murder that supposedly happened on film. The web site, www.yigalamir.com, acquired the video-10 minutes and it is apparent after watching the video and the other evidence that Yigal Amir, the convicted assasin, did not shoot Rabin. Amir shot blanks and Rabin was shot in the limozine. The video was shown on Israeli TV for 1 week in 1996 and never shown again. This will be a big news story in the near future.

- Well, all that is a bullshit conspiracy theory on par with the "The moon landing was a hoax" pages. For every political murder, there will always be someone to believe it was all a part of a vast conspiracy. The ridiculous theories are nothing new, either, and they sure aren't going to be "a big news story" any time soon.

I'd like to refer everyone to the following articles:
British link to 'snuff' videos
Italy charges 1,500 people in child porn inquiry (scroll to 'Necros Pedo')
If these stories are accurate, I think it's safe to say that 'snuff movies' are not an urban legend.

Note that it is insufficient to simply provide a source when making a claim. The source must also _support_ the claim. I am reading from these links that police were looking for snuff films (but no mention of them finding any); that there was a category of film that claimed to feature snuff (but may not have done); and that at least one person wanted snuff (but may not have got it - indeed, may have been provided with fakes in the past). Every newpaper article that I have read on this topic like to trumpet the snuff angle to spice up the story - but read carefully and there is usually no support other than wild speculation. --211.30.13.201 10:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (BeZ)[reply]

In the year 2000, however, an Italian police operation broke-up a gang of child pornographers based in Russia who were offering snuff films for sale to their clients.

I think they were producing child porn, but not 'snuff' films as they are defined in the article. Anyway, the author should have specified the source of his/her information.


From the link above: "The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings ... the most appalling category was code-named 'Necros Pedo' in which children were raped and tortured until they died." 217.50.159.9 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Would videos made by US soldiers in Iraq of them killing insurgents with rock music added qualify as a snuff film?

One word: No. That is unless you added the rock music for your own pleasure... :S Jay Kay 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Many Words: Yes, there is no authoritative defintion of "snuff film". -Unknown
Killing as in shooting rounded-up, captured and disarmed prisoners? and then selling the film for profit? probably. However if it's battle footage then it's more like "a documentary of war" ("Mondo" films, which show actual killing, are similar, though the Mondo footage was allegedly staged with soldiers paid to kill simply for the purpose of the filming, rather than the cameras happening to capture a battle. A small amount of footage from a Mondo film is in Cannibal Holocaust, so that film does in fact show some real killing of people, but the stuff in the jungle with the cannibals is all fiction) which just happens to be unsanitised and shows the killing. Likewise the killing of people like Ken Bigley is done for a purpose, and is distributed freely and not for profit, so it's more like extreme propaganda than a "snuff movie" 89.31.50.92 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely no. Generally a snuff film is considered a movie produced for commercial distribution where someone is intentionally killed. Videos of executions, home videos made by killers (such as 3 guys 1 hammer), and fake killings are no considered snuff films. Videos of war killings such as the Juba videos or ones made by Americans soldiers would seem not to qualify since they are not intentionally produced for commercial distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetMeLogIn (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany in April 1999[edit]

According to a few sources, non of which I have the necessary knowledge to verify, in germany, april 1999, two men received a life-long prison sentence for producing a snuff video. The 'protagonist' died before the film was finished, the woman chosen to replace her fled and informed the authorities. The men claim that they wanted to sell the video for $16.000. One of the prosecutors is quoted to have said, that there's a ready market for videos depicting violence against women and children, especially in the US.

The most detailed source I found is: TranquilEye.com's "German Duo Convicted of Making Snuff Film"

Other sources picking up the story can be found using google.

This story seemed to have two separate parts to it that got muddled. The men were creating a torture video. The woman died so they had to get another. The death of the first was not filmed. Certain journalists put the fact that a woman was filmed and then died to create a story about a snuff film with no supporting evidence.

Similar things have also happened with serial killers who film their victims being tortured (but not killed). Rumours of snuff films arise, once again, from the juxtapositioning of film and death - even though the actual death was never filmed.

-- BeZ 211.30.13.201 10:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor Nitpick[edit]

The first line of the article required editing. As with many headlines that declare "Killer captured" and then include the word "alleged" later in the article, the first line was a declarative, unambiguous statement of the existence of snuff films. I would support revision if actual documentation (i.e. the actual snuff film) ever came to light and it could be demonstrably proven that it was in fact somebody being murdered, but if that happened the whole article would require revision as well. So far all of the snuff film rumors have about as much veracity as the Richard Gere/gerbil rumors, meaning of course that they have none at all. -Unknown

I disagree. The whole point is that a snuff film shows a real murder; if it doesn't show a murder, it's not a snuff film. This is central to the discussion over whether such films actually exist because, as the article says, there are films that purport to show a murder but do not in fact.
Giving a definition of what a snuff film is doesn't imply that any actually exist. The article makes it pretty clear that most people think snuff films are an urban legend. -- 64.81.99.73 03:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hardcore?[edit]

I don't remember the plot of "Hardcore" involving a snuff movie?Gzuckier 14:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Snuff me!"[edit]

[1] This one is probably the most disturbing snuff-video link in the history of the idea. This woman is planning a rape/torture video where things could easily go wrong, and if it does she's scripted out her own murder. -Unknown

kinkyceline.com is a hoax. some pictures on the site presents the german playmate of the year 1990 Celine Huber (like the left bigger picture on the main page). the other pics/vids are copied from sources all over the net. -Unknown
It turns out that it is indeed a hoax. Someone reported the site to Shreveport police (apparently figured out the site was in that area somehow) and they investigated. The site owner's real name is (get this) Daniel Smart, and he currently faces charges of tax evasion on all levels (local, state, and Federal). See the local TV news story and local newspaper discussion board for more details. (This may be something someone could write out for the article; I'm not inclined to do so myself.)

Query origin of the term[edit]

This sentence to me is a little misleading:

The first recorded use of the term snuff as a euphemism for murder was in Ed Sanders' book about the Manson Family murders, The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion (1971).

That might be the first reference to snuff meaning murder, but surely snuff as a general term for death predates that (and it is repeatedly used in dialogue of 1971 film A Clockwork Orange). OK there's a difference betwee murder and death, but the quote I've reproduced above seems to imply that that book invented the term to loosely refer to a human death, I want to clarify it, but would like some other opinions prior to changing anything. MinorEdit 07:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The meaning "to die" is from 1865; that of "to kill" is from 1932; snuff-film, urban legend, is from 1975.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=snuff&searchmode=none Stanley Oliver (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the verb snuff meant to cut this [burnt wick-end] off, and by extension to extinguish or kill
I'm certain this is nonsense. To snuff( used of a candle) has always meant to extinguish the flame by suffocation (i.e., withdrawal of air); hence, a candle snuffer, a conical device on a metal rod used for suppressing candle flames.
Nuttyskin (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen videos[edit]

These are not snuff films because the actions and events were not specifically staged as part of a film. It seems to be real events that also were videoed - not a snuff film. The idea of a snuff film is that it is planned and executed as a film and a film only - in the myth the sets are built and cameras loaded. Then the cast are assembled before the cameras and then killed for the cameras and not for any other reason like war. Precinct13 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt 'critical'[edit]

I'd hardly call Manhunt "a powerful critical voice within the gaming community as it comments on the fascination with death and murder within video games even as it allows its players to carry out horrific murders themselves." kabl00ey 01:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While the game deserves mention, the rest sounds rather politically-motivated. Cleaned up. Zelphar 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yelena Masyuk[edit]

Could anyone support the fact that she'd been raped while in hostage? there's no mention of it anywhere on the web --Anon.

I also can't find any support for these statements, so I have removed the section until someone comes up with evidence. --Slashme 05:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview Ms Masyuk states she never felt in any danger of being raped, I found the interview while googling so it should be easy for someone to verify and source here. Alleged Chechyan movies showing rape and executions do exist, it is sometimes possible to find them on Kazaa. -Unknown
I've found nothing about her being raped, not anything about her "retiring her pro-Chechen stance". Sounds to me like a user trying to insert a bit of partisan bias. Y'know, making this sort of an educational anecdote about a poor, deluded liberal who finally wised up after seeing what the untermensch can do. I've removed it for now; I'd suggest it not be restored without at least one reputable citation. 82.166.53.176 22:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple accounts of this in Russian press at a time. Searching the web wouldn't yield good results for you in such matter due to the former support of Chechen independence in the West. Same story as the execution of New Zealand & British hostages (their heads were found on the road near Grozny), which simply fell through in western media. Masuyk accounts is not an anecdote, and it's quite bizarre that anyone would refer to it that way. -Unknown

Paragraph[edit]

This article should be separated in 2 parts:

  • history of snuff films and facts about real snuff
  • snuff films in popular culture
Do you mean sections? Tyciol (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8 mm[edit]

Shouldn't we mention the Nicolas Cage flick 8mm? -Unknown

Blair Witch?[edit]

Would the Blair Witch Project film be considered a false snuff film?

No, the intention of the filmers was not to kill, they were killed while making an investigative piece. Tyciol (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails video?[edit]

Maybe I'm confused, and I'm sure it wasn't a real snuff film, but wasn't there a sequence in the music video to "Happiness in Slavery" by Nine Inch Nails which had a person mutilating and then killing himself? Isn't that about as worthy of inclusion as the Guinea Pig films? Kasreyn 10:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheen[edit]

The film is so realistic that the FBI, acting on a tip from actor Charlie Sheen (who saw the video at a party), investigated the film, believing it to be a real murder.

On a recent programme on British TV about banned movies, I'm pretty sure this anecdote was attributed to Cannibal Holocaust, not a Guinea Pig film. Ben Finn 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the second volume (of 7) of a Japanese series called Guinea Pig. The entry is titled flower of flesh and blood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:259C:6C7:381C:E5BD:CE7:C2B8 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credible snuff films (?!)[edit]

The following really annoys me:

"A credible case emerged in 2000, when an Italian police operation broke up a gang of child pornographers based in Russia who, it was claimed, were also offering snuff films for sale to their clients in Italy, Germany, America and Britain. This was also reported in the UK where the police admitted the existence of such films after arresting Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov. A dozen British men were also reportedly arrested.[1]"

The article is sketchy about whether the "snuff" films actually exist. Maybe some videos were offered for sale, sure. But the article never clearly states that any actually contained "snuff' footage. The article to me sounds like the journalist called a customs inspector, and asked for his opinion on the speculative notion that "snuff" films might be being imported into the UK, and the article prints that opinion. However the customs guy is not actually refering to any films he has seized or actually authoritivaly knows are in existence. The article in no way corroborates that the films exist at all. The article was published more than five years ago - if, as the way its cited here, it does in fact substantiate the existense of snuff films, well why still have the films never been uncovered and why aren't we hearing any more about it? In many cases newspaper articles are often not a very credible source, especially highly speculative news stories like this one. Asa01 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article states that Italian police did find snuff films among the Russian's collection. If you Google "Kuznetsov snuff" (no quotes), you would see that there are some other reputable news stories that reported on the same ring. This website seems to have an unusual amount of knowledge into the affair, though I realize it is clearly not encyclopaedic. [2] Anyways, I sent the following email to Jason Burke, the original writer of the article. We'll see how he responds.
Hello Mr. Burke,
I am writing in response to a 2000 Guardian article that you had written about the existence of an underground European snuff ring involving a Russian man named Kuznetsov. The Guardian, or any other publication that initially printed the story, have not printed a follow-up in six years. Many on the internet speculate that there has never been a documented case of snuff, but if your article had been truthful, then it would indicate that they are incorrect. They presume that since there has been no follow-up, the initial printing must have been a lark for commercial purposes. I am writing to you on behalf of the inquisitive minds of the internet who wish to put an end (or a correction) to the “urban legend” of snuff films. Is it possible that you can provide an update regarding the status of this snuff ring?
Anon. 08:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Burke has not yet responded, so I have concluded that he is not planning to do so. If anyone else wants to try, The Guardian's homepage is located at: The Guardian. Please send emails and be as persuasive as you can if you want to find out. Try this email.Anon. 05:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New section[edit]

I added a new section called Happy Slapping, is a relative new phenomenon that consist in recording acts of violence with the mobile cam, I think that is a variant of snuff movies Atenea26 14:55 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This subject has been butchered beyond recognition.... There was good stuff on Chechen videos like "The Mechanic" and his famous video w/ the Russian soldier, but people are getting carried away with deleting things because they can't find it on a google Search. I've been to Uzbekistan & Afghanistan and can truthfully say that I've seen these tapes for sale plus a whole lot more, but can I site a source other than my word? Nope, but all I can really can say is let's please stick the the subject ok? "Happy Slapping" is not Snuff. Just like "Bumfights" is not Snuff. -Unknown

Definition, first paragraph[edit]

In a recent edit Kasreyn inserted allegedly in the first paragraph:

A snuff film is allegedly a film that depicts an actual murder, produced explicitly for commercial entertainment purposes (and not as an incidental record of a murder committed for other purposes).

with edit summary "since there are no examples, the existence of such is merely a theory.". I can go with "... a film that depicts an alleged actual ...", but claiming that the definition requires a factual example is incorrect in my opinion. For example, a perpetuum mobile is "a machine that produces energy" and not "allegedly a machine that produces energy". --Woseph 14:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. How about "a film that allegedly depicts"? Or the one you suggested would also work. My only point was to avoid the appearance of Wikipedia supporting the notion that snuff films exist, which is unproven. Good call. Kasreyn 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it. How's this look? Kasreyn 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kasreyn, that looks and sounds a lot better. Hugo Zorilla 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong wrong wrong! For a film to be a snuff film, then it must be a commercially produced film that actually depicts an actual murder. A faked film that some mistakenly believe to contain a real murder, is not a snuff film. A video of an murder that was not specifically committed as the basis of a commercially produced film is not snuff either. Some people believe/believed that commercially produced films where a murder is committed for the film were produced and sold. It has now commonly known to be an urban myth. As far as I see it, this article describes what it is that those people believed existed. It is just that they don't really exist. You would not say "Fairies are allegedly little magical people..." Asa01 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, there is significant dispute over whether snuff films even exist. For Fairies, I would say "are believed to be". So I hereby propose the Asa01 Fairy Rule: anything whose existence is controversial can be described with the same terminology as a baseline thing whose existence is also controversial, such as Fairies. Therefore, I propose reworing the article to "A Snuff film is believed to be..." etc. The most notable thing about snuff films is that they do not actually exist. This should be prominent in the first sentence. Kasreyn 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted[edit]

Below deleted. Nowhere in the article does it say it was a snuff movie, just a videotaped murder. Not that same thing. Asa01 06:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETED:

"It is being reported by certain news agencies that Richard D. Davis and Dena D. Riley are snuff film murderers.

[3]"

Tag at top[edit]

Why the warning tag at top? The article doesn't set off any alarm bells while I read it. An earlier version of it may have. If someone think the tag should stay, please justify t with what needs to be changed, so it can be identified and eorked on. Otherwise the tag does not belong. 172.149.156.177 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added because the article lacks sources. Where are the links? Where are the references? Three references is nowhere near enough for an article of this length. The unreferenced tag does not mean there are specific known errors, simply that the article is so poorly sourced that errors, original research, and bias are very likely. The tag should stay until a good deal more sourcing can be added. Kasreyn 22:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy slapping?[edit]

What is "happy slapping"? If it's vandalism, please fix it.Jay Kay 20:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you assuming bad faith? You have to "google" more. It is real if you not believe it, see this link [4]Atenea26, 13:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of, do they believe it exists, it's just that they are obviously not snuff films, which is why it's ridiculous they were listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.164.58 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of definition[edit]

The definition read "A snuff film is believed to be a film...". I removed the words "believed to be" from the definition. I know what whoever was trying to say -- that it is questionable whether anything that meets the definition exists. However, the question of whether anything actually (or has ever) met a definition is a separate question from the definition -- the definition itself should not refer to that issue, which is adequately dealt with by the following sentence "The actual existence of snuff films has been questioned...." In other words -- a film is a snuff film irrespective of the beliefs of people regarding that film, so the definition of "snuff film" should not reference people's beliefs concerning the existence of such films. --SJK 07:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank dog that's been changed. I tried changing it for exactly the reasons you state, but it got reverted. I hope this edit lasts longer than mine did. I hate the "believed to be" wording, it is like the article doesn't really know what the concept "snuff film" is, but "believes" that it might have an idea of what it might be. As you say, the article gives the definition of the *concept* of snuff films. We know what the concept is, and should clearly state exactly what that is. Asa01 08:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages link policy[edit]

Quote:

==Links to normally avoid==

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material. 

  1. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
  2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
  3. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
  4. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
  5. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
  6. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
  7. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
  8. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser).
  9. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about those media.
 10. Foreign-language sites, unless they contain visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. (See WP:MOS-L for further information on this guideline.)
 11. Bookstore sites; instead, use the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
 12. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

I can understand the not spam links policy and that you only accept links that observe web standards but don't accept the policy "not foreign languages links", since there are people of the whole word contributing in the wikipedia, people do speak languages and there are online translators. Atenea26 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British/Russian/Italian child porn ring; snuff films[edit]

What about this article of a child porn ring busted back in 2000? According to this, unless I am misreading it, involved the production of snuff films with children being the subjects. Observer Guardian -Unknown

I figure that since this story is six years old and seems to have died it was probably a media beat up. Nowhere does the article quote anyone who actually saw any snuff film or footage. Headlines like that sell more papers. Asa01 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange set of assertions. The Observer is a reputable British paper and the article states explicitly that "The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse" . How does the age of a story, or the absence of a follow-up in the media, have any bearing on the truth contained within? -Unknown
This story is not the only example in which children are murdered on camera for profit. However, it demonstrates that this Wiki entry is more then just factually incorrect - it is another act of violence against the invisible victims who have are murdered by the snuff industry. I am quite sure, however, that any changes that are made to this denialist article will be removed (and without explanation). That's the Wiki way on articles about sexual violence. --Biaothanatoi 03:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fact doesn't become a fact just because you say so. I suppose all pornography is pure exploitation and the actors are only forced into it because they have no other way to get money, right? 82.153.230.138 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded murders section[edit]

There is a long section providing several examples of murders that were not staged for the cameras but happened to be recorded but not for commercial reasons.

Since even this article itself says that these are not considered to be snuff films, why so much emphasis on this, and why the long list of examples? I think we need one, maybe two, examples of this sort of thing. I'd delete it, but something tells me this is one of those wikipedia vague and ever-growing example-lists (albeit a rather macabre one!) like Jumping the Shark and Chuck Cunningham Syndrome that editors love adding to so much, meaning that any deletion is always restored, and the list just gets bigger and bigger. Asa01 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles that reference snuff films[edit]

It's a bit bizarre that this article claims that snuff films don't exist, when Interpol says the opposite. In 2003, Interpol assistant director Hamish McCulloch stated: "There is no doubt that such films exist, many of which are available via the internet." (Snuff Movies: Fact or Fiction? 16 October 2003, SAPA).

Here are reports of snuff films from around the world:

  • USA: “In America, the FBI went undercover to a meeting of people invited to watch a snuff movie with a view to buying a copy and the fee to attend the showing alone was 10,000 dollars." (British police probe "snuff movies" in child murder hunt, 27 July 1990, Reuters News).
  • Scotland: "Detectives who found Simon Harris hanged at his home on Sunday uncovered a stash of child porn. The hoard - hidden in his shed and the house - included computer images, photos and snuff movies." (Child porn stash found in murder suspect's house, Amy Devine, 30 August 2005, Scottish Daily Record).
  • South Africa: "In a gruesome case which has shocked South Africa, Ronnie Grimsley was jailed for life last week for his assault on 18-year-old Tanya Flowerday.

... police who investigated the case remain convinced Tanya was killed after featuring in a snuff movie where victims are filmed as they are raped and murdered. They believed the disturbing video evidence has since been sold overseas." (Fiend raped and killed teenager in grotesque snuff movie execution, Ruairi O'Kane, 2 August 2005, The Daily Express)

  • Britain: "... During a harrowing trial at Lewes crown court, the jury had heard that Coutts, who kept Ms Longhurst's body for almost a month and visited it frequently while it was in a storage unit, was an avid user of sites devoted to snuff movies and necrophilia." (Killer was obsessed by porn websites, Steven Morris, 5 February 2004, The Guardian)
    • "... Speaking in a trembling voice, she also told how she was forced to watch DVD snuff movies. She said one of her attackers had said: "We are killers, you know." (Court hears of schoolgirl's abuse by footballers gang, 19 November 2004, Daily Star)
  • Netherlands: "The undercover officer asked Spinks if he could get him a sado-masochistic video featuring boys as young as 10, and Spinks replied that he knew people in Amsterdam who could: `I know, well I knew, some people who were involved in making snuff movies and how they did it was, they only sold them in limited editions, made 10 copies or something, 10 very rich customers in America, who paid $5,000 each or something like that". " (When sex abuse can lead to murder, Nick Davies, 27 November 2000, The Guardian)
  • Ireland: "... A special police unit was able to infiltrate a paedophile network, intercepting packages of pornographic material arriving by mail and then having them delivered by undercover policemen, dressed as postmen and carrying hidden cameras. Thousands of tapes and digital disks, seized during raids on 600 homes, included scenes in which minors - possibly orphans or kidnap victims, some aged only two - were raped. One videotape, costing #4, appears to have been a "snuff movie", showing the killing of a child." (TV personality row eclipses paedophile pornography, By PADDY AGNEW, 4 October 2000, Irish Times)
  • Russia: "Last week Italian police seized 3,000 of Kuznetsov's videos on their way to clients in Italy, sparking an international hunt for paedophiles who have bought his products. The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings. " (British link to 'snuff' videos, By Jason Burke, Amelia Gentleman, Philip Willan, 1 October 2000, The Observer)

--Biaothanatoi 04:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird tendency in Wikipedia to emphatically deny the existence of phenomenon of sexual violence, like snuff films and ritual abuse, when there is forensic, clinical and legal evidence to the contrary. These Wiki articles rely on a media-generated consensus from the 80s and 90s in which allegations of severe sexual abuse and violence are cast as "moral panics" etc. Maybe it's time they were revisited to include ... I don't know ... factual evidence instead of ideological assertions?
Below are some more examples of real snuff films uncovered in police investigations:
  • Michael Leidig, Daily Telegaph, 4/13/99: Ernst Dieter Korzen, 37, and Stefan Michael Mahn, 30, [videotaped] themselves sexually assaulting and torturing a 21-year-old woman in 1997. The victim died before the production was complete and the pair kidnapped a second woman to finish the video. But she escaped and alerted authorities, who arrested the men.
Wolfgang Rahmer, the chief prosecutor, told the court: "From my experience this represents a new depth in perversion. You see the victim begging for her life, pain being inflicted and massive sexual torture."
The court was told that the murdered woman, Jueleyha Akpinar, was working as a prostitute in Cologne when she met the two men in November. They offered her drugs and money to go with them to the remote bungalow in Kierspe-Roensal, near Hagen. A lack of direct evidence had previously led to widespread scepticism over the existence of a snuff movie industry, with many writing it off as an "urban myth". But Wolfgang Rahmer said he had no doubt that such an industry existed.
Both men were jailed for life in a secure psychiatric institution. Judge Hoerst Werner Herkenberg said Korzen should not expect his case to be re-examined for at least 18 years, and that Mahn would have to wait at least 15.
  • 9/27/00 NAPLES, Italy, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Police said on Wednesday they had arrested eight Italians suspected of belonging to a child pornography ring that traded videos over the internet, including film of Russian children who were abused to death.
The material, which was ordered over the internet, cost between $400 and $6,000 for each video or disc depending on the type of film the customer wanted -- and the more horrific the more costly.
The most gruesome, police said, was code-named ``Necros Pedo, in which children were raped and tortured until they died.

--Biaothanatoi 03:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To cut in - Why are you replying to yourself? a bit ...i don't know... obsessive, eh? But then that's the make-up of a moral panic, after all 82.153.230.138 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff films are a "moral panic"[edit]

Moral panic theory is basically a defunct sociological term from the late 60s - it's been picked up by journos who like its pseudo-scientific trappings, but it comes from labelling theory, deviance theory, and a bunch of other sociological schools of thought that have been superceded by social constructionism.

In the most recent edition of "Folk Devils and Moral Panics: Creation of Mods and Rockers", Stanley Cohen (the populariser of the phrase "moral panics") points out that "Calling something a ‘moral panic’ does not imply that this something does not exist or happened at all and that the reaction is based on fantasy, hysteria, delusion and illusion or being duped by the powerful."

Basically, you can't "explain away" snuff films by claiming they are a moral panic, as this article attempts to do. And (see my note above) the fact that snuff films do exist and have been cited numerous times in courts of law kind of blows this article apart. --Biaothanatoi 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I noticed that no discussion of films including real murders as a scripted event but with a plot and story are part of this article, and I have read elsewhere that such films were made during a decadent period that lead to European violence in World War 2.-Unknown

Can you recall where you read about these movies? -Secret Policeman209.244.42.213 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Men Behind the Sun, a movie with real corpses[edit]

I don't know why this movie is never mentionned but it uses human corpses in some footages. The movie is "Men Behind the Sun", and it show us a real necropsy of a young boy and the explosion of another corpse in a high pressure chamber. The director never denied using human bodies in his film. Pretty sick. --User:Megareefer

Because that's not what a snuff film is. The verb "to snuff" means "to extinguish, to put an end to, to murder." For something to be a snuff film, one of the actors has to be alive at the beginning and actually die onscreen. Bodies that are already dead don't count. Kasreyn 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killing vs. Murder[edit]

The introduction uses killing and murder interchangeably. This leads to the somewhat obscure determination that people believe that snuff films do not exist. In what sense? In the murdering sense? Or in the killing sense? In other words, we need to change "killing" in the first line to murdering. Clearly, "killing" is portrayed in media format quite often. Staged "murdering" in a movie for profit, however, is not quite as common. -User:hellrat

Happy slapping[edit]

I am not sure what the connection between the happy slapping section and the remainder of the article. Are happy slapping videos regularly classified as snuff films? --TeaDrinker 20:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been wondering that myself for quite a while. Since somebody else is wondering, I propose that happy slapping be removed from this topic and given its own page or else moved elsewhere. Gzuckier 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic beheadings[edit]

There is an appalling 10 min video compilation of the beheadings of 8 men by Islamic fanatics - most of them by knife. They are all staged and clearly intended for distribution, however informally - the vid is freely available on the web. The clips were made for propaganda purposes, presumably, and not commercial gain. Are these snuff movies?--Shtove 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article itself states, there is much debate over what the proper definition for the term should be. I hold with the definition that requires the film be made for entertainment (often fetishistic) purposes. Therefore the only way the beheading vids qualify as snuff is if one holds the uncommon view that death penalty advocates are secretly death fetishists and support the penalty in order to obtain personal gratification. That being a very rare and extreme viewpoint, however, it is much more rational to assume the beheadings were not intended for any entertainment purpose and therefore, to my thinking at least, were not snuff films. Kasreyn 06:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, even if they are not intended as snuff, they are made into snuff by all people watching htme for some kind of enterteinment.81.225.4.84 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're more like propaganda in my eyes 82.153.230.138 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never: It is very ignorant of you to label such acts as "Islamic". I suggest you do some research and avoid antagonizing more than two billion of Islam's adherents. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights theme[edit]

It may be noted that Snuff Films were the central focus of the october event Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios Florida a few years back. The Director was the central character. Working it in would require a bit of rewriting, which I am not capable of doing (it would take an hour for me to be happy with it) but I'm just saying that if anyone has a bit of time on their hands it's a solid, linkable addition. -Unknown

Chechclear[edit]

This is one of the most gruesome decapitation videos on the internet, and seeing as how the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg videos are mentioned here, I think it is appropriate to admit Chechclear into the article somewhere. -Unknown

Sexual arousal[edit]

I've always understood that "snuff films" were films involving someone being murdered or tortured and murdered and were created for the express purpose of sexually arousing the viewer and/or the filmmaker. Most if not all of the filmed beheading in the past few years that received extensive media coverage would not by any means be considered "snuff films". At least not by my understanding of the word. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Real" snuff video on p2p networks[edit]

I've come across a video 2-3 times on various P2P networks of a blonde woman, visibly upset (possibly restrained to a chair, but that's not visible in the video) and screaming something incomprehensible. This occurs just before the sound of a gunshot followed by a sizable chunk of her head being blown off and blood sprayed on the wall behind her. The manner in which this was filmed lead me to believe it was a bona-fied "snuff film". On the other hand it could have been faked, but if so, it was an incredibly realistic looking one. It's been a few years since I saw it. I recall the whole thing lasted maybe 10-15 seconds. The depiction makes the woman seem quite vulnerable, hence my belief that it is a "snuff film" --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 04:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's a fake, dude. In the video, within the 'incomprehensible' bit she is saying 'Snuff films do not exist'. If you frame-by-frame it, the rather unconvincing blood spatter comes from below the woman involved. She's just a good actress. :) --User:Muncher666 13:52, 29 April 2007

This should be an encyclopedia article, not an essay[edit]

In an essay, you could argue that Weegee's photography of the aftermath of street crime was relevant to the subject of snuff films. In an encyclopedia article on snuff films, it has no relevance whatsoever. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to play loose with the definition do not mean the definition is loose[edit]

The fact is that a "snuff film", as defined, is one where an actual murder is committed in front of the cameras for the purported entertainment value of such a film. The fact that some people get sloppy or hyperbolic and misdescribe as snuff films things which are not (footage of accidents, footage of wartime deaths, films taken by murderers as trophies) does not mean that the definition is suddenly loose. Someone has apparently tried very hard to mask this and intentionally blur the definition; this should not be allowed to stand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to report snuff film to authorities[edit]

I've seen websites on the web like rotten.com, amplovesyou.net; but rarely have I come across something that has gotten me to want to contact the FBI (up until now) -- this video has crossed the line, and so has the site that posted it. It depicts a homevideo of a man with a dead corpse in a tub -- that's all i'd like to disclose, but for now, i'd simply like to know how one would report such a video. Said website and the participants of the video must be punished (unless this has already happened). Any advice? Has anyone else seen this? What is the info behind it? Tell me it's fake. -Unknown

That video clip is from the movie August Underground's Mordum. It is indeed fake, but is still pretty disgusting. -Unknown

Saddam Hussein cell phone video[edit]

Does anyone believe that the cellular phone video clip of Saddam Hussein's execution could be considered a snuff film, and if so, whether there should be a reference to it in the article?

I don't think it should be considered a murder caught on film, but at the very least it's a homicide.

Sdr 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a confusion of semantics here. Murder and homicide are the same thing. Murder is an illegal killing - Saddam's killing was legal by the current government's law, therefore was not murder. The followup question - does it have to be illegal killing to be snuff? Anonymous 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's you who is confused - homicide is any killing, unlawful or otherwise. It's just that people often use it to mean murder. Mdwh 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Has anyone actually read this article? It is very clear what is and what is not a snuff film. The reason snuff films remain an urban legend is because no film has been found that meets the definition. A commercial pornographic film which climaxes with real murder.

Shall we consider steve irwin?[edit]

I was wondering if the acclaimed destroy tape of steve irwin deads by a stingray should be considered as an snuff film?

Short answer-No.

Long answer-Reread the article about what a snuff film is by definition.

Archival[edit]

There wasnt much going on on this page, so I just archived that lot. Ferdia O'Brien 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, about a month later, an unregistered editor reverted the page to a version from February 2007, and therefore undid the archiving and removed some messages. I've just restored the messages. Graham87 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Legends[edit]

This was in the article. I took it out because, well, it's not true. Unless I misinterpreted it, and if I did would someone please clear it up, THEN put it back in. (-Kid. 12:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Passion of the Christ[edit]

I'm curious what editors think - is Passion of the Christ a snuff film in any sense? Is it notable that one person said: "I know, it sounds like a Monty Python movie. You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith."? It's not even clear that this is a serious assertion that the movie really is a snuff movie, but seems a more flippant usage to suggest gratuitous violence. There must be countless violent films that someone somewhere has referred to as snuff, should these all be mentioned too? Also, the current wording suggests that it rebuts the claim "no film generally accepted as fitting this definition has been found" - clearly this is not true, as the film obviously isn't an actual snuff film. Mdwh 22:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory[edit]

The article sates at "problems of definition" that no snuff films have been found. Yet it later gives examples of them!--190.74.105.238 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editors are stuck in the mind frame that snuff films do not exist, because earlier versions of it did not mention known snuff films and actually said "no snuff films exist". Because some editors have read on this article that that no snuff films exist, it will take them time to adjust. Reading something on Wikipedia makes it fact to some people, believe it or not, and it is hard to change your opinion if you already believe it to be fact. Just give it time JayKeaton 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well since the definition of snuff film is that it is made to make money by videoing murders commissioned for the purposes of the film, it would seem very unlikely that one would be made, certainly for public release, for the simple reason that to be successful, a mechanism for charging would be needed, which would enable police to identify the murderer. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31 3 October 2007 (GMT).
I don't think the commercial or financial part of the definition is true at all, and is a much too narrow definition. One would never claim that only commercial sex films were pornography, plenty of pornography exists that was never tied to commercial sale in any way. Mrsteveman1 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article give examples of snuff films? And no, I don't think that snuff films don't exist because I read it on Wikipedia - I think that snuff films don't exist because there has yet to be any evidence of even a single case. Mdwh (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi girl stoning[edit]

A several months ago in the news appeared the video of a Iraqi girl stoned until death, her name was Du’a Khalil Aswad. Her death was recorded by a cellphone and you can download it by internet. Doesn´t it could be considered as a snuff video?? Is a real murder, and it was recorded with many purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.170.57.123 (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be placed under "Recorded murders". It doesn't count as an actual snuff film, unless she was killed for purpose of making the film for entertainment. Mdwh 10:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

In 2000, Russian authorities arrested a man responsible for the making and distribution of several thousand[2] snuff films. Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov, a 30-year-old former car mechanic in Moscow, was identified after British Customs and police traced the origin of violent child porn videos found in the UK back to Russia. Italian police seized 3,000 of Kuznetsov's videos on their way to clients in Italy, sparking an international hunt for paedophiles who have bought his products. The Italian investigators say the material includes footage of children dying during abuse. Prosecutors in Naples are considering charging those who have bought the videos with complicity in murder. They say some may have specifically requested films of killings. [3]

refs[edit]

  1. ^ UK arrest of Kuznetsov
  2. ^ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,375883,00.html
  3. ^ "Snuff videos". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2000-10-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

This is mentioned later in the article, there seems no support other than Reuters/Guardian article, in particular no mention of murder trials in the months an years following. The ref is already in the article. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42 3 October 2007 (GMT).

Apparently he was released from prison in 2005 due to "overcrowding". Very strange.. something fishy going on there.Yonskii (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video game snuff film depiction[edit]

The game Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines also depicts a snuff film in the Hollywood part of the game (and where it was made, with video cameras on stands, etc). Bloodlines was released slightly prior to the game referenced in the article as the first to do so, Manhunt. Perhaps this can be included as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.25.58 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation[edit]

The 'history' part of this articles mentions movies and television series which feature snuff films. I think I remember it being mentioned in Dexter which I've seen both seasons of, but I don't remember as much of a focus compared to a whole episode of CSI which was centred around investigating this. I can't remember if it was CSI (Vegas), Miami or New York. Is anyone familiar with this episode as well, where they use the background scenery through a window to locate the hotel it was filmed in? Once it is found, it can then be referenced in this article as an example. Tyciol (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified urban legend?[edit]

That is false and misleading. Snuff videos exist and are available on the internet. http://www.theync.com/media.php?name=6826-shocking-man-is-murdered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.27.25 (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. This video is a clear exception. Some news articles related to this:
[5][6] (68.40.58.27 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is not disputed by the article. The article acknowledges that films exist that show people being murdered (now with the common availability of phone cameras for example, there is nothing surprising that such films would exist). The "urban legend" refers to depicting a murder for the purpose of distribution and entertainment. It's not clear to me that making the video was the purpose of these acts. Mdwh (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have also heard of a video of these Russian guys killing someone with a hammer and screwdriver. Apparently it is one of those videos meant to shock people so by that definition it would be a snuff film. BenW (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone dies in a video, it doesn't make the video a snuff film. It's a question of even understanding the term n question. The original argument is like saying that unicorns exist because you've seen a horse. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Gore[edit]

This edit (subsequently reverted) probably meant the movie The Wizard of Gore. No opinion on whether it should be mentioned in this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish gangsters in Russia[edit]

Italian and Russian police, working together, broke up a ring of Jewish gangsters who had been involved in the manufacture of child rape and snuff pornography. Three Russian Jews and eight Italian Jews were arrested after police discovered they had been kidnapping non-Jewish children between the ages of two and five years from Russian orphanages, raping the children, and then murdering them on film. [7] ADM (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So incredibly not a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This myth, along with others along the same lines, has been widely circulated by snit-semetic groups like newsfromthewest and such. Nothing to see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.129.167 (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs[edit]

Although it may not adhere to the definition of "snuff film" held by the purists, I think the case of the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs warrants a mention. The young men involved filmed their crimes not only for self-gratification, but with the intention of distribution for profit--or so it was claimed during the trial. This is the case out of which the infamous video of the perpetrators torturing a poor man to death was leaked to the shock sites as "3guys1hammer". *SIGH* It's a sad, sick world. 70.189.64.112 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Abu Ghraib[edit]

I haven't investigated the topic in this aspect but some of the Abu Ghraib "interrpgation" materials could be described as snuff since they show torture in connection with rape and other types of sexual assaults (even on the minors). Some of these movies have been filmed for cameraman's personal fun rather than documentation. Probably with the intention of distributing them after coming home like American soldiers did with photos or bodyparts during Vietnam War —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC documentary: Does snuff exist?[edit]

Maybe a reference could be added to the BBC 2005 documentary "Does snuff exist", which is part of a series of documentaries related to porn.AugustinMa (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link to that documentary exists in the references section, and it's made by Channel 4, not BBC. __meco (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News[edit]

Recently on Fox News, host Glen Beck showed the actual footage of a murder as a segue into his personal evangelical message about how this country is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.100.148 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mnjmnjmjnm,,,,fyrfoiyg/lj[edit]

"Thirty years later, millions of people world-wide sat glued to their screens watching footage on constant rotation of people jumping to their deaths from the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001."

Definitely not encyclopaedic.79.78.64.118 (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

little commercial incentive[edit]

"Since it is trivially easy today to produce a film that simulates a murder in a believable way, there is little commercial incentive to risk the legal repercussions of producing a film in which a murder is actually committed (much less documented on film)." Little commercial incentive? Risk of legal repercussions, hey WTF ?! Is this a bad joke? We are talking about killing people here. Talking about perverted murdering in terms of "commercial incentive" and weighing them against their "risk of legal repercussions" is both an inherently inhumane and immoral language and thinking and I would strongly urge to edit or delete this part. Thank you. --boarders paradise (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting ideas in the way quoted above shows how ridiculous it is to believe that snuff movies are real. It undermines the essential premise behind the belief in snuff movies - that people make them for commercial distribution. I do not interpret the above wording to in any way codone murder or reduce the seriousness, it merely discusses the existing idea behind snuff movies. Since it is pretty much established that snuff movies as defined are a myth, we aren't talking about any actual murders here, just hypothetical concepts, so nothing to get too worked-up over. Format (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long lists of trivia[edit]

The article is made up mostly of long, unsourced lists of examples of films and other genres that treat the urban legend of snuff films. I deleted many, as they begin to be only Trivia, and none were based on a reliable source (WP:RS). The article seems an excuse for some editors to add graphic details of assaults and murders, real or otherwise. Use of sources and citations is sloppy, lacking names of authors, accurate representation of content, and names of websites or publishers in some instances. Have made some corrections and noted citations needed to support other content.Parkwells (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Meiwes[edit]

Infamous German cannibal videoed feeding his victim his penis?

Section on semi-credible existence claims[edit]

It would be very helpful if a section were added that listed the more-credible sounding allegations of specific snuff films (e.g. the 2000 Guardian claim on Russia-Italy-UK). If an effective debunking could be cited that would help as well, but the main point is to give a list of actual films that have been specifically described in journalistic sources but are viewed as insufficiently verified. Burressd (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddaffi Killing[edit]

It seems that this is a prime example of the modern (and seemingly socially acceptable) snuff film. This page seems to refer to it as such but it is perhaps a good idea to wait and see if a better source turns up. —Half Price 23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been reported that the same film of Gaddafi getting killed by rebel forces is still in circulation in Libya by some kind of a martyr's museum in Misrata I think. I can't really cite the source though, because there was a recent documentary made by Anthony Bourdain where he was shown by a former rebel the museum where they continue to show the same clip almost everyday of him getting desecrated by the rebels; if someone wants to know, it was from Bourdain's "Parts Unknown" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.102.43 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

samuel doe torture/execution[edit]

there is youtube footage of chunks of the torture of Samuel Doe, and there is video of the immediate aftermath of his murder. Reportedly there are complete films of the entire torture and murder. sold in the markets of west africa.--108.28.133.243 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Children Tortured and Killed on Tape, Videos Sold on the Internet[edit]

Philip Willan in Rome The Guardian, Thursday 28 September 2000 20.12 EDT http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/sep/29/philipwillan


"Italian police have discovered a massive international paedophile network selling violent child-pornography videos to clients in Italy, the US and Germany.

Eight Italians have been arrested and 490 warned that they are under investigation, in a scandal that has shocked and outraged the country. Police are reportedly trying to identify 5,000 people who are suspected of attempting to purchase the videos, some of which appear to contain images of children being tortured and murdered."

I spent a couple of hours digging around, and these are all the articles I have found on the subject:

http://wwwc.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0009/28/pedo.html http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/italy/10/28/rome.porn/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/01/worlddispatch.rorycarroll http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2000/TV-Director-Quits-Over-Child-Porn/id-f5d6132f1a9aa0df8d6dc8ca7b4a479c


It's incredibly odd that the story just falls of the map. What's up with this whole thing? Anyone know? 216.246.130.20 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation requirement[edit]

Per the source used that mentions "circulation", it goes on to say that "A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film." So the view that circulation of the film is required for it to be a snuff film is not a unanimous view; nor is it one that even that url supports. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Addio?[edit]

Does it belong in that genre? --41.151.57.143 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scully[edit]

Does what he streamed really count as snuff films? I don't think those were really "films" per say, just live videos of him sexually abusing and killing children. Snuff films are supposedly proper films rather than just videos. 58.106.139.192 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find evidence that he actually killed any on-camera. Tortured and sexually abused, yes, but I can't find any confirmation that he actually killed any of his victims in the stream. The link the page uses to cite that doesn't actually contain the information the wiki page says, either.--2605:E000:5FC0:7C:4C0B:C56B:C34B:7349 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search and couldn't find a source confirming that he murdered children on camera, so I removed the section as a WP:BLP violation. Kaciemonster (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME applies here, as he is currently facing trial and has not been convicted. He is accused of killing a 12-year-old girl, but none of the sources that I could find said that he did this on camera.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV intro[edit]

the possibility of such movies is implicit in the stock B-movie motif of the mad artist killing his models The faulty logic in the introductory passage is astounding. POV for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.109.26 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be taken from a quote by Geoffrey O'Brien in The New York Review of Books, but since I haven't got the relevant text, it's hard to say how accurate it is. It's okay as long as it is made clear that it is a quote.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Unsourced” fictional examples[edit]

Fictional examples are often unsourced. What kind of source do you expect for each fictional example? A video? A link to the movie/game itself? 2604:2000:1107:8249:A06E:FE91:68C2:B595 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPCULTURE applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to comment on the reversion itself: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because there are other unsourced pop culture sections on the encyclopedia does not mean this one should also be kept (until it is properly sourced per POPCULTURE linked by Ian above). Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, there’s no way to “Source” pop culture examples. The page only tells what is considered “Notable” examples, not how to properly source them. In fact I have not seen a single popular culture section that has been sourced beyond the mere title of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1107:8249:75F7:C7A:2A66:AD49 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with lack of sourcing is that it does not establish verifiability or why the example is noteworthy. Even if true, it ends up as a list of WP:TRIVIA, like the one parodied in this cartoon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So How. Does. One. Source? 2604:2000:1107:A294:E9AE:7C57:3EA7:A762 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no proof these films actually exist and it's for the most part a urban legend, the significant films and tv episodes that helped weave this narrative/legend and were watched by millions of people is surely relevant. As for sources, each item on the list clearly references the work, just as with a book used as a reference, you can always go ahead and read/watch it if there are any doubts about what the source says/shows. --2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:10D (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish porn[edit]

Should a section be added about legally produced pretend snuff videos, and if so, what kind of information is appropriate? Are links required, are studio names? Omeganian (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legality section needed[edit]

Can someone add current information about thelegality of watching snuff films in different countries, mainly in the US, UK and India? I could not find info more recent than 2012. Thinker78 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jun Lin[edit]

Wouldn't the "1 Lunatic, 1 Ice Pick" thing tied to the murder of Jun Lin count as a 'snuff film'? Or is there a technicality for why that one isn't counted? 142.114.108.200 (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating required[edit]

If we are going to depend on a definition provided by a WP:TERTIARY ("films routinely made for entertainment purposes in which participants are murdered on camera"), and originally written in 1999, we should probably update to include examples such as The Cleaners (serial killers), Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, Academy maniacs etc. In fact any examples where footage has intentionally shared online qualifies as "for entertainment." There are also claims associated with Operation Blue Orchid where investigators attested to seeing footage of children dying during torture. Police investigating the Murder of Kim Wall also claim to have found "snuff" movies. There are many other examples. Snopes at this point is looking sketchy as our main point of reference for this article. Acousmana 12:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signmyrocket.com[edit]

This site allows for people to commission videos that feature Russian soldiers getting fragged by drone-launched or artillery munitions. I think it is relevant to this article. 36.65.251.205 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a "snuff" image is good.[edit]

I wanted to look up this page, and I almost didn't out of fear there'd be an image.

Please never add an image.

I'm reluctant to even post this, in case it makes someone add an image. 121.45.161.105 (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisys destruction[edit]

should daisys destruction, a for pay video made that shows the death of a child be added to this article 199.119.233.160 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war[edit]

A whole section on the War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war has become necessary. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? 65.94.117.242 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snuff_film&oldid=1218424396"