Jump to content

Talk:Gas chamber/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Presenting Allied and Jewish claims as facts!

Do you really think EVERYBODY agrees with these propaganda of massive gas chambers? I just added that who claims these stories about gas chambers. What's your problem? Give any independent, non-Allied, non-Jewish source who repeats such stories about gas chambers and then present it as a fact. It is obvious that those who fought against Germany can not be neutral to present their claims as facts.--Professional Assassin (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not EVERYBODY agrees that water is wet, but no space is given to that theory on the page on water. Familiarise yourself with WP:FRINGE. Denying the existence of gas chambers, or the holocaust is a fringe theory. There is a massive host of verifiable, reliable sources that support their existence which conform to WP:V and WP:RELIABLE, which is the criteria required for inclusion, not your insistence on "non allied, non-jewish" sources. Hohum (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Do enemies of a countries include in reliable sources for reports about that country? There are also tons of sources that deny these massive amount of killings, have happened in Germany. What you do is censoring, which you don't let opposition's voice to be heard.--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no reliable sources which deny the holocaust. I doubt that you can find any that Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard will accept. Additionally, your own credibility is plummeting. If you don't agree with wikipedia's policies or guidelines, you can try and change them, this talk page is not the venue to try to do this. If you don't think "enemies" should be able to have opinions, could you say where you are from so that you can be excluded from any articles that I think it ever had a problem with? Thanks. (That was rhetorical). Hohum (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My edits are not against Wikipedia's guidelines, yours are! You don't even know that I have not inserted my own research in the articles. What I have added, are all well sources material. So my nationality and whether I am an enemy or friend of either parties has nothing to do with my edits. I am not saying that YOU are an enemy of Germany, I say YOUR SOURCES are, hence they can not be neutral. for example, can you present data from Taliban or Al-qaida's websites in the article of the USA as facts and describe the United States as her enemies describe her? --Professional Assassin (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Your edits are clearly intended to minimize the validity of the sources used, without presenting any proof. This is against wikipedia practices. You have confirmed this was your intention by what you have said in this talk section. Also, you are the one that brought up the idea that anyone considered an enemy of a faction by a wikipedia editor should be considered suspect. It's deeply ironic that you say that your nationality has no bearing on your edits, but that of the author of a verifiable, published source is.
You could try to prove that the sources are unreliable, one way of doing this is by having them vetted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. They are not "my sources" by the way; I didn't introduce them. Hohum (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And your edits are clearly intended to not let the opposition's sayings be heard which is clearly against Wikipedia's guidelines on "Wikipedia is not censored". I don't say what I insert in the article is an ABSOLUTE FACT. I said it is the opinion of a very LARGE NUMBER of oppositions which you are trying to censor. You try to show your opinion as an absolute fact which never should be contested!--Professional Assassin (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you have used the Institute for Historical Review as a source in the article, I have sought opinions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for its credibility. Hohum (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Historical Review is a pseudohistorical source and addition of such source falls under WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. I will remove the NPOV tag added by PA. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have updates to section with the actual text of both letters.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:RSN has soundly rejected the reliability of the Institute for Historical Review. We need to decide whether we should delete the entire paragraph which cites the IHR drivel - including the clarification added by Slatersteven; or: Rewrite it without the IHR rhetoric, retaining Slatersteven's clarifications (with full citations); which may prevent the boilerplate denial argument being presented again. Hohum (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The IHR is an unreliable source. Please don't use it again. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

IHR has been soundly rejected as a reliable source at WP:RSN, so I have removed it again. Stop using it as one, it is entirely against consensus to do so. Hohum (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
BBC is also against consensus. Everything which shows this gas chamber thing is a children's story is against consensus. Well continue your Wikipedia:Tag team, to protect the nonsense and write vampire stories instead of history. :)) --Professional Assassin (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The IHR is not a reliable source, nor is David Irving. If you continue to try to insert this materal, you will be taken to the appropriate board for administrative action. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Additonally, I will point out that regardless of the quality or reliability of sources, including anything the IHR has to say on the subject gives their claims undue weight. Wikipedia's undue weight policy is a part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, a core Wikipedia policy, which is to say, it must be followed without exception. This is an article about gas chambers, not Holocaust denial, and although there's no doubt that the IHR and Irving made the claims that PA says they did, those claims are insignificant to the subject of the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, lots of people are benefiting from this children story of gas chambers. A country is being paid a huge amount of money only because of this theory. It is obvious that there are so many people who don't want any opposing voice to be heard by ANY MEANS.--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Calling Nazi gas chambers a "children's story" shows up your bias nicely. Go push your Holocaust denial and Nazi fandom on some other website. Fences&Windows 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And you continue expanding this children's story and fanatically delete any opposing evidence and build a total black and white image of WWII where Allied were angels and Germans were evils, may you receive a portion of war ransom too. :))--Professional Assassin (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Participation by the condemned

In the US execution section, I think it's worth noting that gas chamber executions are unique among all other forms of capital punished in that the condemned is forced to be an active participant - to commit suicide. Indeed, as noted the prisoner is instructed to breathe the poison in. This differs from all other execution methods in which a third party is always in control by way of flipping a switch or pulling a lever or pulling a trigger. Even outside the US execution methods such as beheading and stoning do not force the direct participation of the condemned. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Gas chamber at Buchenwald

"In early 1940, the use of hydrogen cyanide produced as Zyklon B was tested on 250 Roma children from Brno at the Buchenwald concentration camp."

Is this at all reliable given that Martin Broszat, Director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich wrote in 1960 in a letter to Die Zeit:

"It is at those places [in Poland], but not in Bergen-Belsen, Dachau or Buchenwald, where the mass extermination facilities, spoken of in your article, were built and disguised as shower baths or disinfection rooms." http://www.zeit.de/1960/34/keine-vergasung-in-dachau It appears to be single-sourced from a Czech emigré publication via a later Czech communist publication. It should not be accepted without critical examination of the source and supporting evidence. I am not aware of any historian who supports a gas chamber in Buchenwald. Does Wikipedia just repeat unconfirmed rumours?Channelwatcher (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The source you cite does not contradict the material currently in the article. As can be seen in the quote above, the article and the cited source merely say that "Zyklon B was tested" at Buchenwald on a relatively small number of victims, not that mass extermination facilities similar to those at Auschwitz were built. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a mention of Buchenwald as a place where experiments were done to increase the scale of the gassing carried out in the T4 programme in Bracher's "The German Dictatorship",(ISBN 0-14-060014-0), p 529-30. The victims were Jews, but the gas used isn't identified. I'm fairly sure I've read another account of experimental gassing at Buchenwald, but I can't find it now. (Possibly in Sereny's "Into That Darkness"? - I no longer have a copy of that.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations?

The section on Nazi Germany lacks credible citations on several of the statements/claims that are made in every single paragraph. For instance the gas chamber execution figures are given no verification. Moreover alternative points of view are completely disregarded. This article is biased. 212.44.45.21 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Which "alternative points of view" did you mean? Please review WP:RS before responding. Jayjg (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edits

This page is semi-protected, so here is a list of suggested edits.

In the Nazi Germany section, the gas Zyklon B is mentioned, but not linked. Wikipedia has an article on the chemical, so linking to it would increase readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.129.141 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

Please change the first line in the Nazi Germany section from,

"Gas chambers were used in the Third Reich as part of the "public euthanasia program" aimed at eliminating physically and mentally retarded people and political undesirables in the 1930s and 1940s."

to

"Gas chambers were used by the Third Reich to eliminate Jews as a part of the the "Final Solution to the Jewish question, and as part of the "public euthanasia program" aimed at eliminating physically and mentally retarded people and political undesirables in the 1930s and 1940s."

because the primary target and victims of the nazi gas chambers were jews and it should be so remembered. the numbers are staggering.

Loring vogel (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does this describe physically handicapped people as "physically retarded"?

To my surprise, I noticed that this article claims that "physically and mentally retarded" people were massacred by Nazi Germany. What is the intended meaning of "physically retarded" in this case? It seems strange (and perhaps even pejorative) to describe a physical handicap as "physical retardation", but does it have any legitimate meaning? Jarble (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Burton Abbott execution

This section should clarify that the governor was on the phone attempting to stay Burton Abbott's execution. It is currently ambiguous.

"In 1957, Burton Abbott was executed as the governor of California, Goodwin J. Knight, was on the telephone attempting to stay the execution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.215.35 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

Please change the method of euthanasia of animals in the Livestock paragraph from 'carbon monoxide' to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide asphyxiation is one of the current procedures approved by the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) for the humane euthanasia of research animals. It is often accompanied by a secondary procedure like thoracic puncture to ensure death of the animal. Bun1221ny (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2014

Please change the method of euthanasia of animals in the Livestock paragraph from 'carbon monoxide' to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide asphyxiation is one of the current procedures approved by the IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) for the humane euthanasia of research animals. It is often accompanied by a secondary procedure like thoracic puncture to ensure death of the animal. Bun1221ny (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The information at Animal euthanasia#Inhalants seems to disagree with you, and at the time this information was put into the article back in 2008, it was accompanied by a source backing it up (though that source has long since become a dead link so I can't review it anymore). Given the inconsistencies here I'm not inclined to make any changes to the article without some more substantial sourcing and discussion. --ElHef (Meep?) 05:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Maryland on the Map

Maryland no longer uses the death penalty. Perhaps time to change the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.94.198 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

most dangerous

"the gas chamber is considered to be the most dangerous ... method of administering the death penalty" -- I assume this means "most dangerous for the executioner", since all methods are equally dangerous for the executee. Might be worth rephrasing accordingly. jnestorius(talk) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello jnestorius. I think it's so obvious that the execution device is supposed to be dangerous to the executee, it's hardly worth mentioning. I suppose if you wish, you could add something like: ".......most dangerous (to all involved in the process),.......".
Richard27182 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Less tritely, is it the likelihood of things going wrong or the seriousness of the consequences if they do? Perhaps both. jnestorius(talk) 23:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi jnestorius.
      I'm not officially an expert on the gas chamber, but it is an area of interest of mine, and I have done quite a bit of research on the subject.  And I've never come across any reports of anyone (other than the executee) being harmed during a gas chamber execution.  But that is largely due to the tremendous number of extreme precautions and safeguards that are always in place for any gas chamber execution.  (I believe those safeguards and precautions are the main reason the process is so complicated and expensive.)  But if there were to be an accident (the worst imaginable being a significant gas leak from the chamber), it could kill everyone present (witnesses included).
      So I guess the short answer to your question concerning the reason the gas chamber is considered the most dangerous execution method ever used in the United States is mostly the seriousness of the potential consequences rather than the actual likelihood of it happening.
      Are you considering making a change to the article?  Of course any editor is fee to edit (just about) any article; but if if you do plan to edit the article, I'd be happy to help you if you wish.
      I will be happy to answer any other questions you have and/or provide assistance in making edits.
Richard27182 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

Please put the country sections in alphabetical order:

  1. Napoleonic France (alphabetize as "France")
  2. Nazi Germany (alphabetize as "Germany")
  3. Lithuania
  4. North Korea
  5. Soviet Union
  6. United States

Thank you. 2601:5C6:8301:32B0:C4D7:F80:3227:FBFF (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 2601:5C6:8301:32B0:C4D7:F80:3227:FBFF (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 15:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Formerly in Lithuania

Gas chamber was used as an execution method in Lithuania 1937-1940, being actually put in use just once for an execution for military crimes on 21st July 1937. It was placed at Kaunas fort. This should be added to the page. 03:56, 22 December 2011‎ User:85.251.62.8

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

This is a minor edit request. Citation #1, from deathpenaltyinfo.org, was updated. The article states that three states allow execution by gas, however the updated source lists five. Further research may be needed to resolve this discrepancy.

Section "Live Stock" at the bottom of the article states: "Gas chambers have also been used for animal euthanasia, using carbon monoxide as the lethal agent. Sometimes a box filled with anesthetic gas is used to anesthetize small animals for surgery or euthanasia." but does not cite any valid reference to this point. Therefore, it is recommended to either insert an "additional references needed" tag at the location OR to remove this entire section for failure to cite a valid reference. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading sentence with incorrect citation about non-Jewish victims of Nazi gas chambers

The section on gas chambers in Nazi Germany ends with the sentence:

In accordance with the Nazi cross-European policy of genocide against the Jews, the SS "processed" thousands of Romani people, (male) homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, intellectuals and the clergy from all occupied territories.

The citation following this sentence does not actually back it up. Perhaps this reference properly belongs with the previous sentence?

Also, this sentence implies that the listed victims were gassed in gas chambers, which is incorrect for non-Jewish homosexuals, intellectuals, and clergy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll). I believe this sentence should be deleted.

Ellie Ash 2601:184:4980:A54:BC7B:E747:8C2:1C63 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the section in question and the reference. I would agree that is a bit unclear, but I think there are issues with more than just this one sentence. The section is factual but it has gotten a bit clunky through the editing process, e.g. the subhead for Gas Vans seems out of place. Basically it needs a good rewrite and copy edit to be more clear. I would note that there are several other Wikipedia articles that provide more detail specific to the Holocaust and Nazi death camps; this section in this article just needs to give a top-level outline of the use of gas chambers by the Nazis. I'd also note that any rewrite should avoid the euphemism "processed" in favour of the more accurate murdered.
I will work on a rewrite of this over the next couple of days. - EronTalk 18:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have completed an extensive rewrite of this section for clarity. Also streamlined the references and took out some extraneous detail. Happy to discuss any issues with these changes here. - EronTalk 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Soviet Union

As the Great Purge prececed the Holocaust, the Soviet use of gas chambers should be included in the lede. (86.137.48.71 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gas chamber. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

North Korea, etc.

Assayer said there are better sources [1]. Where are they? Can you please post them here or just use them on the page. I only found this (beyond newspapers), but again, one can argue, just as on the gas van page, "Hey, this is coming from a single primary source!". In fact, in this case, this is coming from a widely published testimony by a single person. Not so in the case of Soviet gas vans, where numerous independent sources fully corroborate the story. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

See Daniel A. Pinkston: DPRK WMD programs. In: North Korea's foreign policy under Kim Jong Il. New perspectives. edited by Tae-Hwan Kwak, Seung-Ho Joo. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009, p. 116. Pinkston mentions South Korean skepticism and says, that such experiments cannot be proven at this time, but it also cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, he admits, defectors quite commonly exaggarated their claims and thus the documents could have been forged. --Assayer (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
An that is all it tells? Then the book I linked above is much better because it provides a lot more info and available online. This is North Korea: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments By Ian Jeffries, 2006, by Routledge. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
That book is a "quarry" (Jeffries) of information compiled by someone who does not read nor speak Korean. It consists mainly of lengthy quotes from English language newspapers like the International Herald Tribune. On the other hand, I quoted the assessment of the available evidence by an acknowledged expert in the field, Daniel Pinkston. You don't see the difference? It seems as if you just look for quantity, but not quality.--Assayer (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced materials and restoration of unsourced materials?

This edit - why? My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Same as in above section. Very dubious claim not fully supported by sources, part of them unreliable or primary. Does not deserve inclusion. Unlike all other cases described in the article, no evidences have been provided that that method was approved by authorities. Removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the text you removed includes some academic sources. If I rephrase it using only academic sources per the sourcing restrictions, would that be acceptable? My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to tell about usage of gas chamber as officially approved killing machines. The material presented in these sources is controversial (per Wheatcroft), there is no evidences that that procedure was approved officially, and even there is no unequivocal evidences that they were used for killing, not for incapacitating before execution. The materials described in these sources are acceptable, but not for this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh no, essentially all sources, including academic ones, tell their use was officially approved. Everything NKVD did was officially approved. That was a militarized organization with a chain of command. The only question is by whom/what officials/commanders, exactly. That they do not tell, but it does not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I would not do anything here until the matter is clarified by Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The account you proposed runs counter to the vast majority of RS which do not attribute the invention of mobile gas chambers to Isai Berg and to those according to which the Soviet Union did not have gas chambers (including Robert Gellately, who acknowledges possible Soviet gas vans). You are well aware of these sources. Moreover, you engage in original research.--Assayer (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
No. Almost every source about the usage of gas vans in Moscow tells about Berg (excluding only sources that tell about this very briefly, in one or two phrases). Four sources about usage of gas vans in other Soviet cities obviously do not tell about Berg because he operated only in Moscow. It is also important that Soviet and Nazi gas vans "were the same" - according to the "academically-oriented" book by Albats. Robert Gellately also tells about Soviet gas vans. He only tells that NKVD did not use the stationary gas chambers. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, Gellately does not speak of "stationary gas chambers", but of simply of gas chambers. Anyway, if you insist on distinguishing gas vans from gas chambers, there is not legitimate reason to include material on Soviet gas vans in an article on gas chambers.--Assayer (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The gas vans and stationary gas chambers by Nazi obviously belong to this page. Sources, including a book by a Harvard graduate, tell that Soviet and Nazi gas vans were "the same". This is justification for inclusion. Note that it was not me who originally included the materials about Soviet gas vans to this page. Post an RfC about it if you wish. I restored old version of this section (prior to my editing). Welcome to improve. If not, and you do not object, I can easily improve the text and sourcing. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I support it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you guys saying that gas vans by Nazi were not gas chambers and therefore too should be removed? If not, we should include all mobile gas chambers (aka gas vans) to this page, as they were actually already included by someone (not me). My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: an argument can be made for attributing the claims made by "unrestricted" sources (with respect to TA sourcing restrictions), so as not to imply claims made by "restricted" and "unrestricted" sources have equal evidentiary basis. That way we can maintain both categories of sources in a single article without clashing on WP:DUE grounds. François Robere (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what you suggest. I am only saying that (a) the materials about mobile gas chambers (by Nazi and others) belong to this page, and (b) if a source (e.g. book by historian Robert Gellately noted above) tells that NKVD used only mobile gas chambers (aka "gas vans"), but did not use the stationary gas chambers like Nazi, then let's cite it on the page. This book satisfy any sourcing requirements, and there are several other comparable sources about it. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not opining on Gellately, but on how we should treat sourcing in this article in general, given that one section is follows more restrictive sourcing requirements than the other. François Robere (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think it is not entirely clear if this section is currently under such restriction (without a banner about the page-level restriction) and what exactly this restriction prohibits and allows. I asked this on ARCA in the request by Piotrus [3], but there was no response so far. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly why I'm suggesting attribution would be useful here. François Robere (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I completely agree that we must provide explicit attribution in all cases when the claim clearly originated from a single source, even if it was reproduced later in other secondary RS. For example, in this case we should say "according to [the book by] Petro Grigorenko", or "according to Shreider" when we are talking about their specific claims. On the other hand, if something was claimed in multiple RS, such as the fact of usage of the gas vans in multiple locations in the USSR, then I do not think an explicit attribution to multiple sources ("according to") would be required, although one could say "reportedly" [refs] to avoid claiming this in WP voice. If there are no objections, I will fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • According to him, ""The Soviets sometimes used a gas van (dushegubka), as in Moscow during the 1930s, but how extensive that was needs further investigation. They used crematoriums to dispose of thousands of bodies, but had no gas chambers." Looking at the context in the book, it is obvious that he means stationary gas chambers, which indeed were not used in the Soviet Union. Are you taking a position that the mobile gas chambers, aka "gas vans" (for example, by Nazi) were not effectively gas chambers? That is not what sources say. The Nazi gas vans have been included as a variety of gas chambers on Holocaust related pages, and rightly so.My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, can you write up the Soviet gas vans using only English-language scholarly sources? It might be shorter, and it might not say exactly what you want it to say, but it would at least be something we could all check. Igal Halfin mentions them (the "soul takers") in Stalinist Confessions (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009), p. 463, footnote 166. He discusses the claim that vans taking people to be executed individually actually gassed them on the way, and he mentions Berg. He doesn't state clearly that this happened, but he does briefly discuss who said what. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have this book, and it is not accessible online. I assume there are many other English language sources which mention this subject, but I have no idea about them (I am not at all an expert). However, if it helps, yes, I can write brief summary using several such sources I know about. It will not include Russian language sources which tell essentially the same as English language books, but provide some additional important details. I can place it right here later, when I have time. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Can you see p. 463? SarahSV (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can. Thank you! This is good RS to use. I have never seen it before and never read anything about Kharitonov who said they used gas vans. Chesnokov was apparently mentioned in more detail here (Russian source), but according to this Russian source they did use the gas to "prevent riots" on numerous occasions. Author of the book (Halfin, your link) tells that gas vans were not mentioned in other "Soviet" sources. I am not sure what he means by "Soviet sources" because there are books by Mikhail Schreder and Petro Grigorenko where they make such claims, and these books have been reliably published (the book by Grigorenko was published in the USA). These books are freely available online (I gave links in my edit [5] and I double checked what they say). There are also other good publications about this in Russian, such as ones by Golovkova who was described in other books as "a principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books" and I think she does qualify as a scholar. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
He may mean never mentioned in other Soviet (primary) sources from that period. He writes that, because the sources he's aware of are writing in the 1930s, their claims have not been contaminated by later narratives that may have influenced them. In that context, he says "on the other hand, execution by gas is never mentioned in other Soviet sources ..." You could email him and ask. He might know about other sources you could use. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not that much interested in the subject to email, etc. From what I have seen, the first publication on the subject was one by Grigorenko (this is also an important reason to mention his book). The information is insufficient because the NKVD/KGB archives were never open to researchers and systematically destroyed. Consider a situation if Nazi won the WWII. Would we know so much about the Holocaust right now? My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
But in general, the idea of not using non-English languages sources when the information is not available in English is wrong. One should simply compare and cross-verify all information coming from different sources, English or not, and include it only if a claim has been generally consistent with a number of sources. That is exactly what I did in this case. I also understand that there are good and bad sources, even if they seemingly fell to the same category. For example, I do know that Petro Grigorenko and Nikita Petrov can be trusted, unlike let's say Sudoplatov. Not every Russian language source is propaganda and disinformation. Only some are. Same with English language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: All English sources are telling about the same single incident. This incident is based on two sources: the first document is an NKVD interrogation record of Isaj Berg, where he was accused of usage of gas vans during the Great Purge, and the second source is Golovkova's collection of testimonies about the very same incident (the footnote in the source provided by you cites Butovskii poligon, which is based on Golovkova's collection). I am not aware of any reliable English source that uses other primary sources, and I have a strong feeling that no other primary sources exist at all.
Based on what these primary sources say, we can conclude the following:
  1. The statement about usage of gas vans was taken from the NKVD document that accused Berg of that action. Let me stress this fact: Berg himself was the Great Purge victims, and the description of his gas van was made by NKVD, which accused him of criminal usage of that killing machine.
  2. One of testimonies from Golovkova's collection casts a doubt on the Berg's confession, and it openly says that Berg's confession is not more trustworthy than confession's of other Great Purge victims.
  3. Another testimony says that the vans did exist, but they were used not as killing machines, their goal was to incapacitate victims before execution. That is implicitly confirmed by what another witness says: that all victims arrived to the execution place alive, because the procedure of identification before execution was mandatory, and sometimes, very rarely, some victims were released, because their identity could not be confirmed.
In addition, it is well known that the Great Purge was organized hastily and almost without preparation, so the NKVD personnel had to improvise, and it is highly unlikely that they had time to design any special technical means for execution. Most likely, they just took an ordinary van and diverted the exhaust pipe into it.
In summary, all English sources either are derivative works based on the 1990 Russian tabloid article that cites Berg's interrogation record, or they use Golovkova's collection. Some other source just tell about "Soviet gas vans" without providing any sources, and it is clear from the context that they tell about the same story.
Therefore, to avoid a totally false impression that various English sources provide independent descriptions of multiple cases of Gas van usage in the USSR, we should clearly explain we are speaking about the same case described in multiple sources that cite the same primary source. Otherwise, Wikipedia will become a collection of sources that form a network of multiple cross- and circular references, thereby making a contribution to the development of a new urban legend. That will undermine a credibility of Wikipedia as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "All English sources are telling about the same single incident". This is not true. First of all, the famous book by Gigorenko ("In the Underground One Can Meet Only Rats…") was apparently translated to English, as our page tells: [6] (the gas vans were used near the city of Omsk according to the book). Secondly, most English language sources tell about multiple gas vans used multiple times in Moscow. Most important, there is no reason to exclude good Russian language sources - per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We have to focus on English-language sources for anything contentious because we can't check Russian and Ukrainian sources. We don't know what they say; we often can't even work out what they are; we can't judge their credibility or quality; we can't judge DUE. The policy says:

... English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. ... if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided ...

Rather than interpreting "of equal quality and relevance" as a loophole, please interpret it more narrowly. If you write this up using English-language scholarly sources only, we can see what's there and it stands a chance of being included. Without that, it stands almost no chance, and this dispute will go on and on. Once you have a version in place that relies on English-language sources, you could perhaps add other sources to the bundle with translations. Bear in mind that you're writing for largely English-speaking readers. Those are the people who need to be able to look up and check your sources. SarahSV (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Actually, it is even incorrect to speak about "equal quality" in this case. Indeed, the Grigorenko's book is memoirs, i.e. a primary source. Moreover, what Grigirenko says is not even a hearsay: in reality, he describes, from memory, an old conversation with some person, who claimed he was a witness of alleged gas van usage in 1930s. Another source, Shreider, is a primary source too, and from his description, it is clear that the author speaks about a van that was used to incapacitate victims before execution. Finally, the only secondary source that summarized these two primary sources is an article in some obscure local newspaper (with non-exisitng Alexa rank) authored by some self-proclaimed historian with unknown credentials. No clear and unequivocal support was obtained during the RSN discussion of that source. Therefore, by no means we can speak about sources of "the same quality". In that case, not NOENG, but REDFLAG is relevant, and that is why I propose to clarify WP:V about usage of newspapers. In my opinion, WP:SOURCES should be more clearly connected to WP:REDFLAG, concretely, we should add to WP:SOURCES the concept of higher and lower quality sources, because REDFLAG speaks about "high-quality sources", but that term is not defined in the policy.
In other words, we should clarify that the category "reliable sources" includes such subcategories as "high quality" and "low quality" reliable sources, and, depending on situation, low quality but reliable sources are acceptable or unacceptable, and REDFLAG defines some cases when low quality reliable sources are not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
A van to incapacitate people only wouldn't make much sense. Is that source saying they would unload unconscious people from the vans, then somehow wake them to execute them? How could the drivers judge what would incapacitate but not kill?
Timothy Snyder mentions these gas vans in passing: "The people [in Minsk during the Holocaust] called the gas vans by a name that had been used for the NKVD trucks during the Great Terror a few years earlier: 'soul destroyers'" (Bloodlands, pp. 236–237). His footnote 28 on p. 490 says: On the gas vans, see Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, 1075; and Rubenstein, The Unknown Black Book, 245, 248, 266–267. For 'soul destroyers,' see Projektgruppe, '"Existiert das Ghetto noch?" Weissrussland: jüdisches Überleben gegen nationalsozialistische Herrschaft', 162.
As for the sourcing policy, people are unlikely to change it because of this dispute and there's no need to, because the key part of that policy here is WP:NOENG. This kind of situation is what that section exists to deal with. The vast majority of editors and readers are left without a compass when faced with Russian or Ukrainian sources. In this situation, we need to know how the English-language scholarly community approaches the issue of Soviet gas vans, because we assume that as historians they know how to evaluate the sources. SarahSV (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The Soviet gas van story became popular in the West, but when you start digging you arrive, sooner or later to the same Berg's story, which is being re-told, with variations and additions, by different authors. That doesn't change the fact that the factual basis of this story is (i) Berg's interrogation records, and (ii) Golovkova's collection.
With regard to incapacitation, similar story about alleged usage of gas vans against non-Jewish Yugoslavs is described here. And that source explains why incapacitation does make sense:
"The “dušegupka” was, in actual fact, only meant to knock out the inmates, so that they would not realize that they were about to be shot."
Note, that source is really reliable, and it shows the mechanism of legend formation. The same is found in Golovkova's collection. Thus, Alexander Mikhailov says:
"По свидетельству водителя такого грузовика, это было связано с тем, что необходимо было в какой-то мере исключить возможность бунта в машине. Естественно, у людей, наглотавшихся угарного газа, воля в известной степени подавлена, и многие из них принимали смерть как избавление от мучений." (According to the driver of such a truck, this was due to the fact that it was necessary to some extent exclude the possibility of riot in the car. Naturally, in people who swallowed carbon monoxide, the will is to a certain extent suppressed, and many of them accepted death as deliverance from torment.)
Actually, the policy should be changed not because of this dispute, but because I found a gap in the policy: it says that (i) "mainstream newspapers" are reliable sources, whereas NEWSORG says otherwise, and (ii) REDFLAG mentions the term "high-quality reliable sources", whereas this term is never defined nowhere on the policy page. That creates seeds of the conflicts similar to what we are having here, they will repeat again and again, and it would be better to clarify the policy to eliminate the roots of such conflicts and to save our time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at gas van, I see the material is there, so why is this parallel discussion happening? SarahSV (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Because this thread started after I removed this material from this article. I am going to remove it from the Gas van article too, but, to save our time, I would prefer to continue that discussion here, for the same arguments are equally relevant to both articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that WP:NOENG is an important policy, and I follow it all the time by choosing English language sources when possible, by providing translations when requested by others, etc. Checking what a non-English source tells is usually not a problem (using Google), but it can be more difficult to evaluate reliability of a non-English source. It helps if we have a page about an author, and he is someone notable (like Grigorenko, Solzhenitsyn and Petrov in this case). In other cases one should simply check other publications by an author and check if he was considered as someone controversial by others. I do not see any problem at all. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
However, I can make a version bases only on English language sources because you asked, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: this MVBW's post is an example of a discussion that has already made several rounds, and the goal of this my post is not to continue it, but to explain some facts to you, because you are a new participant. The authors mentioned by MVBW belong to the group of sources that either cite exclusively Berg's interrogation records (Solzhenitsyn), cite no sources at all and tells the same Berg's story (Petrov), or are a primary source (a memoirs that cite some non-verifiable story told to the author many years ago, which he reproduced from memory (Grigorenko)). It had already been explained to MVBW that whereas Solzhenitsyn is a notable author, this particular book ("200 years together") has been broadly criticized for anti-Semitism (in particular, he accuses Jews of invention of gas vans), and add nothing new in addition to the original publication that describes the gas van (the only publication he uses). The only useful information that one can obtain from "200 years together" is a conclusion that even Solzhenitsyn was not aware of any Soviet gas vans before the 1990 tabloid publication where the Berg's case was described originally. Furthermore, Petrov does not disclose his sources, and his article tells essentially the same (which is not surprising, because all primary sources on that subject has already been listed by me, and he could not have obtained information from thin air), therefore it is absolutely unclear why should we add another ostensibly "independent" source telling the same. With regard to Grigorenko, no reliable secondary sources exist (besides a couple of Holocaust denial writings) that cite this Grigorenko's story, and that does not allow us to use it per REDFLAG (his claim is definitely extraordinary). All of that has been explained to MVBW many times by several users, and I do not see how can his behaviour be explained assuming his good faith. Therefore, that case is a good example of problems with WP:V that allow their misuse.
Moreover, MVBW's statement: "one should simply check other publications by an author and check if he was considered as someone controversial by others" is an indication of another problem with WP:V: whereas WP:BURDEN says that the one who add/restores some material is expected to support it to an inline citation, the policy does not explain explicitly that the burden of proof or reliability also rests with those who adds a source, and the lack of criticism is not an indication of reliability per se.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, the claim is not "extraordinary" because it is generally consistent with all other numerous RS on the subject of Soviet gas vans published in all languages, except that it appears the "vans" were used in multiple locations, a relatively minor detail that is supported also by at least three other sources cited on the page. However, the book by Grigorenko was the first publication on the subject (published in 1981 in New York), and it therefore must be included. In addition, this is a highly notable book published by a highly notable author. This book by Grigorenko was translated under title "Memoirs" to English and supported in multiple academic reviews: [7], [8][9],[10]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
All English sources, except Holocaust denier's writings, are based only on Berg's case, therefore, a claim that gas vans were used somewhere else is definitely an extraordinary. You perfectly know that. Grigorenko's memoirs by themselves is a good book, but the gas van story has not been cited by any secondary source, except, again, books authored by known Holocaust deniers. This my reply is addressed mostly to a new participant of the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Low citation does not make any claim "extraordinary". This claim is not at all surprising (given info on the subject from other numerous RS) or even not particularly significant, it has never been challenged by any RS (a blog post by unknown person does not count), and it is not "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The source is not self-published, but reliably published, re-published in other languages and reviewed in scholarly sources. So, this is not the case of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. But "you perfectly know that". My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeating the same arguments ad nauseam does not make them convincing. The burden of proof is on those who adds some material, and it has not been sustained yet. Per Wheatcroft ("On scale and nature..."), the whole Soviet gas van story is "sensational", and it needs further evidences. That means that per WP:REDFLAG, it must be supported by "multiple high-quality sources". Moreover, per the policy explanatory supplement, not only memoirs, but even newspaper articles that just reproduce those memoirs or historical documents are considered primary sources, which means Petrov and Zhirnov are primary sources for Berg's story, and Grororenko is a primary source for the Omsk story. Moreover, majority of English sources that just tangentially mention the same story are also primary per LINKSINACHAIN. Only few sources can be considered secondary, and all of them but one tell only about Berg. The one remaining secondary source, Sokolov's article, does not meets criteria of a good secondary source, because the reputation of fact checking and accuracy of Crimean echo is not known (the lack of criticism is not an indication of good reputation); its publisher's reputation is not known; it definitely has no adequate editorial oversight (there is no indication that Crimean echo 's editorial board is composed of reputable historians. Therefore, virtually all sources proposed by you are lousy, only few sources can be used, and all of them tell about Berg only.
That is my last response, unless I'll see anything outstanding in your posts. I am going to remove all questionable sources from this and Gas van article, and further attempts to re-add them, or to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam will be treated as disruptive editing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, where did you get an idea that "all English sources, except Holocaust denier's writings, are based only on Berg's case"? This is not true. Let's check random English language source, such as this. It tells: "It is also known that the convicts were very often killed by the exhaust fumes in especially prepared vans; so called ‘dushegubka’– Gas Vans. The implementation of this particular method made it possible to increase the day limit of the executions. The vehicles mentioned above wereequipped with special valves which redirected exhaust fumes into air-tight chambers with convicts inside. The prisoners who had been sentenced to death were stripped naked, tied and thrown into a van. Their private possessions were taken and stolen from them by the NKVD officers. The convicts were being suffocated on their way to the places of execution. The most important places of mass executions and burials during the time of terror in the years 1937–1938 were: Kurapaty on the outskirts of Minsk in Belarus, Bykivnia near Kiev, Lewaszewski Memorial Cemetery in Leningrad and Butovo near Moscow.". Nowhere it tells it was "only Butovo" or only by Berg. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
During a discussion of Halaburda, we already found that Halaburda just cites Kizny, who uses Govovkova's archive. I am not aware of any primary source about gas vans in Kurapaty, and Halaburda cites no source except Kizny, so he definitely mentions Kurapaty not in a context of gas vans, but in a context of executions. You were a participants of that discussion, so I find this your comment not completely sincere. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
By the way, according to Lipkov, Golovkova is not a historian, but an artist. Therefore, Golovkova's collection is a collection of primary sources assembled by an amateur historian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Not a historian? Said who? In English language books she was described as a historian [11]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Stop gaslighting. The source that tells Golovkova is an artist historian is Lipkov. This source was found and added by you. The English source cites a dead web page, so it is not clear where a conclusion about Golovkova was taken from.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to say. The book I linked to just above [12] was published by the Princeton University Press, and it tells: "In the case of Butovo, the procedure has been reconstructed on the basis of archival documents and interviews with retired executioners, and described by the historian Lydia Golovkova". My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The source does not say "Golovkova is a historian", it assumes she is a historian based on the non-verifiable link (I assume that was a link to "Butovskii polygon" she is a cheif editor of, so the author's mistake is understandable). In contrast, Lipkov seems to be personally familiar with Golovkova, he knows who she is, and he explicitly says that Golovkova is an artist and a chief editor of the "Butovskii poligon" memoirs collection. Therefore, in that context, Lipkov is more reliable source. I am 100% sure you perfectly aware of all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
No, the source (a book by the Princeton University Press) tells "by the historian Lydia Golovkova". This is NOT a "non-verifiable link". As about Lipkov, yes, I agree, his article in Kontinent is also an RS on the subject of Soviet gas vans. I am happy you now admitted it. Same person can be a historian and an artist. My very best wishes (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument that the vans were intended for "incapacitating victims" would be ridiculous if it wasn't about such horrible events. You can't invent interpretation of NKVD intentions. Anyone who intentionally redirects exhaust fumes into a passenger section must be aware this can and will be lethal for people inside. The abundance of sources on the gas van usage by NKVD, both primary and secondary, fully justifies having it documented here on Wikipedia. The argument that NKVD victims were always "executed after thorough identification" on the other hand suggests cherry-picking or ignorance. Bolsheviks used any means available at given moment for mass executions, from chemical weapons used to suppress Tambov Rebellion, dumping 6000 people on an inhabited island and let them die (Nazino affair), to death marches and chaotic NKVD prisoner massacres when they were fleeing from German offensive. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. The claim that redirecting exhaust fumes into the passenger section served to "prevent the riots by prisoners" was made by two NKVD people who were personally responsible for the executions. These claims are reliably sourced and therefore should be included, but no one takes them seriously. Do you mean that Paul takes them seriously? I am not sure after reading his comments. Paul also made a point (based on this ref) that similar claims were made by Nazi with regard to their gas vans, which I think should also be noticed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Napoleonic French in Haiti, 1802

While maybe not a "chamber" as such, I found this reference to mass murder of prisoners by poison gas in this article:
"The French staged mass executions via firing squads, hanging and drowning Haitians in bags. Rochambeau invented a new means of mass execution, which he called "fumigational-sulphurous baths" of killing hundreds of Haitians in the holds of ships by burning sulphur to make sulphur dioxide to gas them."
Source given is "James Perry: "Arrogant Armies; Great Military Disasters and the Generals Behind Them", Edison: Castle Books, 2005 page 83."
I suppose it would be appropriate to include this in the article.
--BjKa (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Very dubious, it not really a gas chamber. I think we would need a source making the connection.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I've added two sources, one of which calls the method "a rudimentary gas chamber". -BlackTerror (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gas_chamber/Archive_2&oldid=1083513709"