Talk:GAZelle

Trucks Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confusing lead

Ladies and gentlemen, I have an educated guess that GAZelles are similar to the later launched GAZ-2215/GAZ-2752 Sobol and GAZ-3310 Valdai line of vans and light trucks because Sobol and Valdai in fact belong to that line as well, don't they?

As for the last sentence in the lead, I don't get what exactly was renamed the "GAZelle Business". Was that the whole GAZelle line, or just one of its models? Happy GAZelling, Ukrained2012 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transit copy

I've noticed a few editors adding & removing this, for instance: [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. Can we please stop the slow edit war? If there's some reason to believe that the source is lying, or if there's some reason to believe that wikipedia shouldn't reflect what sources say, we can have that argument here on the talkpage. But I'm amazed that User:Druschba 4 says it's "unsourced". Can you explain? The source is right there. Is there a language barrier? Any Russia-related article is bound to attract some weird partisan editing, but this is just an article about an old van; surely the article can rely on a reliable source which covers the van industry. 51.194.217.168 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my English is sufficient to understand the problem here, this is not a language barrier.

So far I have not been able to determine that a source was given during the respective edits. It was also not apparent that an existing reference should prove the statement. It would be helpful to write this in the edit summary next time to avoid any situations like this one.

The vehicle is not a simple copy of the 1986 Ford Transit, although they do resemble each other in various places in design. The first generation of the GAZelle does not use any of the original Ford engines and even a simple visual comparison shows that many body parts such as doors, bonnet, fenders and roof are not compatible with each other. There are detailed comparisons of the two vehicles in the Russian automotive press, like this one, which outline a number of other differences. For example, the dashboard and the arrangement of the instruments look completely different, different entrances were installed and the chassis was changed to adapt the vehicle to Russian needs and to get a higher ground clearance.

Most of this is highly obvious and already recognizable from images available through a simple Google search. A source claiming a plain copy seems somewhat unreliable. So, please, undo the edit by yourself. Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the sourced content again, User:Druschba 4, despite previously claiming to be able to read the source and claiming some understanding of WP:V. I realise that people have all kinds of weird beliefs about Russian articles, but this one should follow what the sources say. Please stop pretending that the Gazelle is not a Transit copy; please stop removing sourced content when other editors have told you not to. bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bobrayner. Actually I do not pretend anything, neither is there a need for doing so, nor I'm interested in doing so.

I would be happy if you would take part in the discussion content wise and, for example, contribute further reputable literature to present different perspectives on the topic in the article. I am sure that various additional facts can be collected and presented, especially on the history of the van production project before the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is a fund of well-founded russian literature that is available, not only physically, but also on the internet. These include contemporary Soviet books as well as more recent elaborations on vehicle history in the SU. I will happily abstain from further discussion and research. My interest in this particular aspect of Russian automotive history isn't big enough for any more effort and I don't see it beeing appreciated either.

For the record: I would like to ask allready today not to remove any of the information I have added to the article. As per your reasoning above - they are sourced now. Kind regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think, that a source for such a claim should be more, than just a statement from a random journalist w/o any substantial explanation? Because in the article you provided as a source there is just that: "A copy of the fourth-generation Ford Transit from 1986, the Gazelle...", nothing more on the topic. If you reinforce your position with such dubious arguments, you might wanna put forward a less strong statement, such as "the vehicle was inspired by 1986 Ford Transit" or "the design was heavily inspired by 1986 Ford Transit". 176.226.133.64 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time the article entertains at length that the GAZelle is a transit copy.

There are currently no cited sources that corroborate this claim. There are articles which claim a superficial resemblance, but simple observation shows that the exteriors of the vehicles differ substantially in the details of their assembly, and while the general shape of the van is similar this can hardly be taken as proof of a design basis given the nature of this class of vehicle.

It has been ~2 years since this discussion and this article is still cluttered with superfluous and dubious information. Gallstoner (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gallstoner: I pruned and rewrote a little more; the Transit myth needs to be put to bed already. Mr.choppers | ✎ 03:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cite a reliable source that says "A copy of the fourth-generation Ford Transit from 1986, the Gazelle generated half the company's income, despite being sold virtually unchanged since its introduction in 1994."

But on the talkpage there are comments like "There are currently no cited sources that corroborate this claim".

What is the best basis for an article? Reliable sources, or editors who contradict the reliable sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four sources which expressly refute it (Klimov, Thompson, Iunes, Shugurov). I will take those over a throwaway comment which vaguely calls it a "copy". While I am sure that the Russians kept a few Transits and others around during development (just as they bought Daihatsu Cuores to look at while developing the Kamaz Oka), it shares nothing beyond appearance and purpose - which is true for most vehicles in this category; Sprinters look like Transits look like Ducatos and so on. Gibbs provides no detail and no supporting evidence, unlike the four authors refuting this common trope. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]