Talk:Gas van/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Inspired by NKVD?

I've seen reports that Nazi germany learned the 'gas van' system from the Soviet Union, whome used it to kill its murders, and such. Yet it is not talked about in this artical, is it fact or fiction? Of course, the soviet union wasen't useing the gas van for the same reasons as Germany, but.. Discuss, please. --76.179.164.79 (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Gas Van

This Van is clearly a Magirus. Nothing is known about gas vans from "Magirus". It should be removed because gas vans are known from the companies Saurer, Diamond T, Opel and Renault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Maierhofer (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC) see Link: deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans.html --Holgerjan (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the data on the picture, it was not even in the concentration but was nearby, and used to move furniture. This image needs to be removed from the article as it has nothing to do with the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.21.183 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I don't think "gas van" was a factory option for any of those companies. I imagine the Germans modified any suitable vehicles they had on hand as needed to murder their victims.--172.190.146.99 (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Would-be copyright issues

I am wondering whether nazis could construct gas vans if direct fuel injection, ECU, lambda-sond and catalytic converter equipped engines were available at their times? Or they would have to reprogram the ECU to deliberately increase percentage of CO in exhaust? Since ECU firmware is copyrighted, they would have to infringe copyrights to build gas vans.

File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims removed

Welcome to restore if supported by good RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

martyr.ru appears both live and reliable on my computer. and 200YT is hardly a RS, being a reviled antisemitic pamphlet.--Galassi (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. http://www.martyr.ru/content/view/6/15/ is the currently provided link. It leads to nowhere. What reference to which source are you talking about? My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.martyr.ru/content/view/6/15/--Galassi (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, you fixed the link. Why do you think this qualify as WP:RS? This simply a Russian language web site. Who created this site? Who author of the text? This is not even a self-published material because we do not know who wrote this. OK, one of the articles was signed by "А. Ватлин, кандидиат исторических наук". We should probably guess that other pages are also written by him (this is not at all clear). Then, it will be a self-published material. That Vatlin? My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Lydia Golovkova, totally RS.--Galassi (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So, this is Christian web site about martyrs, and an article written by author who contributes to Orthodox Encyclopedia [2]. OK, that answers my question. Not sure that it could satisfy people on RS noticeboard, but I do not mind.My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The host is irrelevant, but Golovkova is a major historian, as well as a human-rights activist.--Galassi (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, I can see that she published a couple of books and was mentioned ones in "Google books" [3]. This goes as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, I do not think that such quotation as: "По поводу этих «душегубок» мнение старшего поколения работников НКВД неоднозначно..." and so on. properly reflects the source. Of course it can be noted that "according to personal beliefs of former NKVD officers...". To me this sounds exactly like "according to personal beliefs of former Gestapo officers... they never gas the Jews". My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Soviet vans

I checked an additional book, by Yevgenia Albats, KGB: The State Within a State. 1994, and she tells as a fact (page 101) that gas vans were invented and used by NKVD in the Soviet Union in the end of 1930s, and only later widely used by Nazi. Here are other books in article which apparently tell the same:

• Robert Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. Knopf, 2007 ISBN 1-4000-4005-1 p. 460
• Catherine Merridale. Night of Stone: Death and Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia. Penguin Books, 2002 ISBN 0-14-200063-9 p. 200
• Timothy J. Colton. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Belknap Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-58749-9 p. 286

I do not have these three books handy, but must AGF with regard to users who included this information. Now, there are also some removals of sourced materials, such as these: [4], [5]. I am not suggesting to restore these edits, but did anyone challenge sources used in these reverted edits? I do not see anything on this talk page.

Here is the point: there is only one Russian language source that calls (one time) the invention of Gas vans by NKVD "rumors", but it does not actually claim them to be rumors if to read whole text. Moreover, people who express concern about the existence of vans in this publication are actually former NKVD officers, whereas a number of books (at least what I checked) tells about this as a well established fact. Yevgenia Albats is a Harvard graduate who studied specifically the history of NKVD and KGB. I suggest to change text of this page accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I quickly fixed this. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A reliably sourced information coming from a Nobel Prize winner [6] does belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Which part of it is reliably sourced? He saw them? Saw any documents proving their use? All he heard was rumours which he put in his book. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The invention of gas vans by the NKVD is only rumoured. However, it's given MUCH more space than the opposite opinion. See WP:WEIGHT. And even from a Nobel prize winner ONE source is not enough to accuse someone of inventing such a horrendous device. This is an encyclopedia, not Daily Mail. Either find documentary sources or make the two points of view equally presented. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoted above are four books, each of them qualify as reliable secondary RS. All of them tell about the Soviet invention. They are written by well recognized scholars. In this context, an additional book by Solzhenitsyn comes as a supplementary source. This is reliably sourced: there is no doubts that Solzhenitsyn made the claim. We are not telling this is The Truth; we attributed the statement to Solzenitsyn. This must be fine by all means. What second point of view are you talking about? We currently have exactly zero sources claiming it was not invented in the USSR. My very best wishes (talk)

More sources telling the same (none of them is Solzhenitsyn):

1. By Nikita Petrov, a Memorial (society) historian: [7], [8]: "Берг прославился тем, что при его непосредственном участии в московском НКВД была создана машина-«душегубка», в которой приговоренные умерщвлялись выхлопным газом. Отчасти это берегло нервы московским палачам. Загрузили в Таганской или Бутырской тюрьмах живых — в Бутове выгрузили мертвых, и вся работа. И никаких славословий Сталину. Сам Берг пояснил следствию, что без такого усовершенствования «невозможно было исполнить столь большое количество расстрелов»."
2. [9]: следственное дело арестованного в 1937 году начальника административно-хозяйственного отдела УНКВД Московской области Исая Берга, в котором говорилось: "Берг тогда являлся начальником оперативной группы по приведению в исполнение решений тройки УНКВД МО. С его участием были созданы автомашины, так называемые душегубки. В этих автомашинах перевозили арестованных, приговоренных к расстрелу, и по пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров они отравлялись газом. Берг признавал, что он организовывал приведение в исполнение приговоров с применением автомашины (душегубки), объясняя это тем, что он выполнял указание руководства УНКВД МО и что без них невозможно было бы исполнить столь большое количество расстрелов, к которым арестованных приговаривали три тройки одновременно" My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the evidence/references it is untenable to speak of the gas van as a Soviet invention and to claim that [i]t was later widely implemented in Nazi Germany. Such a wording suggests that there was a chain of development leading directly from the SU to Nazi Germany. This was not the case and the sources given do not support such a conclusion. Rather a gas van was used by the NKVD and gas vans were used in and by Nazi Germany. On a side note, it is inappropriate to speak of gas vans as an extermination method in Nazi Germany to kill enemies of the regime, mostly Jews. Nazis killed people they considered and designated to be racially inferior, life unworthy of life, political enemies and so forth.--Assayer (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How come? All these sources tell gas van was invented by the NKVD "with participation" of Berg. First four sources are English language books (+Solzenitsyn), others are Russian language sources (there are direct quotations; you can use Google translator if you wish). My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please cite any RS telling these vans were NOT invented by the NKVD? My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to publication in Novaya gazeta. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's take a look:

• Other methods were used on an experimental basis. One policeman Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death in batches in the back of a specially adapted airtight van. Merridale, p. 254.
• Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo. Colton, p. 286
• The Soviets sometimes used a gas van (dushegubka), as in Moscow during the 1930s, but how extensive that was needs further investigation. Gellately, p. 286.

These sources state that a Soviet NKVD officer used some sort of gas van, but none of these sources make the claim that the Soviet secret police NKVD invented the gas van as it was "later widely implemented" (previous article version) by Nazi Germany. To infer that the gas van was a Soviet invention is an improper editorial synthesis. A reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Soviet invention of the gas van. In fact, a closer look at the Russian sources demonstrates that the use of a gas van was used as evidence against Berg when he himself was arrested by the NKVD (and ultimately shot).

On the other hand, Henry Friedlander commented on the Lange Commando:

• For this purpose [killing patients in numerous Wartheland hospitals in 1940], a kind of mobile gas chamber had been invented. We do not know the inventor, but the KTI was probably involved. (The Origins of Nazi Genocide, 1995, p. 139)
• Mathias Beer opens his seminal paper on the gas vans: Unter Gaswagen ist ein besonderes Produkt des Dritten Reiches zu verstehen, nämlich ein Lastkraftwagen, auf dessen Fahrgestell ein luftdicht abgeschlossener Kastenaufbau montiert war, in dem durch das Einleiten von Auspuffgasen Menschen getötet wurden. ["The gas van is a peculiar product of the Third Reich..."] (Die Entwicklung der Gaswagen beim Mord an den Juden. In: VfZ 35 (1987), p. 403
• The Holocaust Encyclopedia (Yale UP, 2001), ed. by Walter Laqueur, names Arthur Nebe, who charged Walter Rauff with the technical implementation of gassing human beings by exhaust fumes from a truck engine. Rauff oversaw the modification of vans.
• Katrim Reichelt in her entry on Gaswagen in the Handbuch des Antisemitismus, ed. by Wolfgang Benz, vol. 4 (2011) names Albert Widmann and Arthur Nebe as the two, who together developed the method by which human beings were killed in vans by exhaust fumes. The vans themselves were modified by Rauff, Friedrich Pradel and Harry Wentritt. (p. 143f.)

None of these sources refer to a Soviet invention and it is not up to Wikipedia to suggest something like that.--Assayer (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• None of your quotations tells directly where it was invented, but obviously it was invented somewhere. I did not read the books by Merridale, Colton and Gellately. Are you sure this is all they say on this subject? If so, what follows from your quotations is that the van was used in the USSR in 1930s and much later in Nazi Germany. However, other sources (the book by Albats, Solzhenitsyn and the article by Nikita Petrov tell it was invented in the USSR by the NKVD. If the actual inventor was Berg however is less certain. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure we can speak about a single invention event, because, obviously, no patents or publications about this "invention" existed. Until sources will be presented that prove Nazi knew about Berg's invention, we should speak about independent events.

Re Albatz etc, I am pretty sure they use the same primary or even secondary source, so it makes sense to combine them, or even to remove some ov them. BTW, Novaya gazeta link seem dead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that Merridale et al. confine themselves to basically nothing more than a sentence. I might also express my bewilderment that claims are made what all these sources tell when that is for the larger part in fact unknown. Gas vans were secretly developed in Nazi Germany. It is not that kind of "invention" that you would boast. Therefore, I suggested to do away with the term "invention" altogether. Any objections if I ask someone who speaks Russian concerning the sources in Russian?--Assayer (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you can ask anyone, but the Google translator does it just fine (copy-past of translation from here): "But the greatest ingenuity was shown in Moscow. In 1990, I was shown the investigative case of the head of the administrative department of the NKVD of the Moscow region Isaiah Berg, who was arrested in 1937, which said:"Berg was then the head of the task force to enforce the decisions of the UNKVD MO troika, which involved the creation of motor vehicles, the so-called gas vans, transporting prisoners who were sentenced to death, and gas poisoned en route to the execution site. acknowledged that he had organized the execution of sentences using a car (gas vans), explaining this by the fact that he was following the instructions of the NKVD Ministry of Defense and that without them it would be impossible to perform so much The number of executions to which the arrested were sentenced by three threes at a time .. From the stories of Berg's interrogations and from the conversations that went among the staff of the NKVD Ministry of Defense, it was known that the procedure for bringing the verdicts, organized by Berg, was disgusting: the condemned prisoners were stripped naked, bound, muzzled and thrown into the car. "The property of those arrested under the leadership of Berg was plundered."

And there are multiple sources, starting from the book by the Nobel prize winner, which tell the same and more. Was it re-invented in Germany as you say? So far we have zero sources which explicitly claim it (they only say gas vans were used in Nazi Germany). But we do know about the Gestapo–NKVD conferences and NKVD agent Nikolai Skoblin who acted as a secret agent to transfer various information to Gestapo. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

All of that is a very interesting story. My comments of that are as follows:

1. It seems that all "reliable sources" that tell about Soviet gas vans are actually telling the same story using Solzhenitsyn as a source. I found no further evidences that may serve as a ground for broad generalisation. Albatz is known for inaccurate usage of sources, thus, she used Guinness book as a source for the number of killed by NKVD. Conclusion: use Solzhenitsyn as a main source, other sources, especially, newspaper articles that do not disclose their information sources, should be mentioned tangentially.
2. Isaj Berg was arrested in 1938 and executed in 1939. A story of the gas van was a part of his testimony during interrogation. It may be true or not, however, there is no evidences that this information was transferred to Nazi. I also saw no reliable evidences that this van was used by someone except Berg, and, taking into account that Berg was executed, I doubt any of chekists dared to use this innovation. Other evidences look like "city legends" or "prisoner folklore". Therefore, the linkage between Berg's van and Nazi van was not more evident than the linkage between Zuse computer and ENIAC.
3. Initially, Nazi tried to use pure CO for killing, the idea to use engine exhaust came later. That means we can speak about a gradual evolution of German technical thought, not about picking someone's idea.
4. The idea to pick something from untermench-Russian seemed too odd to arrogant Nazi, who believed it their racial and technological superiority (at least until 1942).
5. I found an obscure book [10] where a detailed analysis of Nuremberg trial was presented, and a conclusion is: no gas vans existed in Germany, all evidences were forged. This book supports the claim Berg invented gas vans, although almost no evidences are not presented. I didn't find any reviews on this book, so it may be a standard Holocaust denier book. As far as I know Amazon banned this book as revisionist

In summary, what reliable source allow us to tell is as follows:

1. A single case of gas van usage in the USSR was Berg's story. Berg was convicted and sentenced, and no other documented cases of gas van usage can be found.
2. No documented evidences existed about informational exchange between Nazi and Soviets on that matter. Nazi invented gas vans in attempts to find cheaper sources for CO that they used for gas chambers before.
3. Some revisionist authors claim there were no usage of gas vans in Germany, and only USSR used it. It seems these writings belong to Holocaust denier category, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

1. There are reliable sources, i.e. historians (Colton, Merridale Gellately) which accept the use of a gas van by Berg as a fact, but do not speak of an "invention".
2. Solzhenitsyn may have won a Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970. But his work Two Hundred Years Together has drawn strong criticism for its factual unreliability. Therefore I would not use him as a main source.
3. Yes, the first Nazi German gas vans were different in that CO tanks were used like in the euthanasia killing centers. Rauff and his team began to use exhaust gas, because CO became expensive and hard to get during the war. No source provides evidence that the gas vans of Nazi Germany were devised after the model of a Soviet gas van. Without reliable sources speculations about secret conferences are not helpful.
4. Yevgenia Albats indeed writes: ...Chekists used trucks camouflaged as bread vans for mobile death chambers. Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of Auschwitz were built. (KGB, 1995, p. 101) Her text, however, is confusing. She writes about the Soviet special camps in occupied Germany and introduces the paragraph with the sentence: Although these camps were closed in 1950, a new wave of repression was unleashed of the Soviet Union, no less terrible than that of 1937. Is she suggesting that the Soviet gas vans were used after 1945? For her Auschwitz seems to be a metaphor rather than an implementation of Soviet killing methods. The first time a gas chamber was used to execute a man was in Nevada in 1924. That does not make Americans the "inventors" of the Nazi gas chambers.
5. Albats' associative style is critical, however, because it falls in line with the reasoning that the Soviet and the Nazi system were essentially of the same kind. Such comparisons are to be undertaken with care. As Gellattely emphasizes the differences: [T]he Communists did not create killing centers. 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. (I will not discuss works by Germar Rudolf and I would strongly discourage linking to Rudolf's publishing house. The blog Holocaust Controversies deals with the deniers' treatment of the gas vans[11])
6. I would not speak of the gas van as an "invention" like the telephone, aviation, the atomic bomb or antibiotics at all. The gas van as it was used by Nazi Germany was part of a continous perfection of killing methods starting with the gas chambers of the euthanasia and the use of CO gas, the use of exhaust fumes like in Treblinka and the use of Zyklon B in Auschwitz and Majdanek. They were mobile gas chambers, but they were primarily gas chambers.--Assayer (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Solzhenitsyn, my point was that it was clear where he took the information about gas vans. With regard to other sources, do yo understand if they are independent sources, or they just re-tell the same Solzhenitsyn's story? I see no evidences so far that prove these sources use any additional information besides the one published by Solzhenitsyn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources, including Albats refer to Solzhenitsyn, and they are written by different authors. So, I assume they are independent RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If they do not refer to Solzhenitsyn, they probably refer to other sources (unless they used a magic crystal ball as a source of information). What is the source they use for this claim? Do they refer to some concrete archival document or another secondary source?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to Paul.

Your point #2. Yes, none of the currently cited sources tells there was an informational exchange between Nazi and Soviets on that matter. And we do not claim it on this page.

Your point #3. Yes, I totally agree, there is a lot of evidence (in terms of RS cited on this page) that the vans were used in Nazi Germany. If anyone thinks otherwise, this is WP:FRINGE.

Your point #1. No, none of the cited sources, including books by Merridale, Colton and Gellately, tells that was "a single case". They tell the vans were used by the NKVD near Butovo, and that is exactly what we tell. Based on context, the vans were used regularly. The sources do not tell how many people have been processed through the vans, and we do not tell this on the page. Etc. Every word in this section seems to be well sourced right now.

As about your objections to Albats, well, her book certainly qualify as an academic RS, and this is not only her, but Solzhenytsyn, Nikita Petrov, the publication in Kommersant and others. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply to Assayer. I am not sure what exactly you suggest to change on the page. Albats tells (in plain English), it was "invented" by NKVD, and we tell it was "invented". Russian language sources above also tell it was "invented" or "created" by NKVD, depending on translation. Speaking of Nazi trucks, yes, I totally agree with you that all such details are important and should be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Under "single case" I mean usage of gas vans (or a gas van, it is unclear how many vans were used) by Berg's team for Butovo executions. Are there any evidences that other groups used gas van before or in parallel with Berg, and after his arrest. As far as I understand from Berg's explanations during his interrogation, he had to use gas vans because his team was physically incapable of executing so many people. It seems it was his own initiative, which was neither encouraged nor adopted by NKVD. Do any source say otherwise?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, we are not doing any "original research" here, but simply tell what RS tell. Since this became a matter of discussion, I cited the book by Albats directly. Someone cited Solzhenitsyn directly before me. That's fine. If you can find any other good RS on this subject, please also cite or summarize them. This is the essence of WP:NPOV. And, no the citation of Solzhenitsyn and the source from Kommersant tell that Berg acted on the orders from the top of NKVD. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You deeply misunderstand our policy, which says: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Since I am not going to make any new claim, I am not doing original research. In contrast, you are going to make a claim that Albatz and Solzhenitsyn are telling about different events, which means you are supposed to prove this. I am asking again: can you prove that Albatz is using sources other than Solzhenitsyn?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Albats gives as her source Komsomolskaya pravda, October 28, 1990. If one source, Albats, tells it was "invented", but at least two other sources given (Colton and Merridale) do not follow that reasoning, I do not at all see it as mandatory that we tell it was "invented. For that it has to be shown, that Albats' book from 1992 (Russian ed.) is the standard textbook for this topic. Given the mistakes that I spotted on only two pages, I sincerely doubt that. And in my understanding a "creation" is not the same as an "invention". The changes I suggested were:[12]--Assayer (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Komsomolskaya Pravda is a tabloid, and I agree that fact checking is not the strongest part of Albats as a source. I myself found at least two blatant mistakes there: usage of Guinness book as a source for the figure of victims of Stalinism, and the claim that the Soviets killed 200,000 in Latvia (it is not in the book, but this statement belongs to Albatz).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Paul. "Albatz and Solzhenitsin are telling about the same, i.e. the invention and use of gas vans by the NKVD. But they are two different and independent RS because Solzhenitsin does not make a reference to Albats, and Albatz does not make a reference to Solzhenitsin (as I already said above). My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, no silly arguments: Solzhenitsyn could not cite Albats, because they belong to different generations.

If Albats uses Komsomolskaya Pravda (which does not add credibitity to her book), that means she indirectly uses Solzhenitsyn, because KP most likely used it. In addition, reliability of KP is a big question. If Albats makes no reference to Solzhenitsyn and think a reference to KP is ok, that means she does not approach the problem seriously. Again, if Albats uses KP, I would like to see where did KP take this info: we must be sure we are not telling the same urban legend created based on a singke statement (Solzhenitsyn) and transmitted by different tabloids in different ways.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Assayer. The RS we are using/citing is the book by Yevgenia Albats (and she herself as an author of the book), not an article in newspaper (which could be a primary source, whatever). We make a direct reference to her and quote her directly. This is all consistent with the policy. As about your changes (the diff), most of them are already included, others are incorrect (we can't say "The vans were used by Berg", he did not use them alone, we should say they were used "by NKVD"). Sorry, but I should do something else. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Assayer, here is a quote from a review on Albats:

"As she herself proclaims at the outset, this is not a systematic scholarly work, nor is it aimed at specialists. It is for the general reader and she is deliberately seeking to convey an understanding of her 'obsession' in a 'pointed and emotional style'. A second problem occurs in her cavalier attitude towards evidence. For example, she asserts that in i99I the KGB had a staff of 5oo,ooo, making one agent for every 297 [sic] citizens. This is compared then with some unspecified time in the Soviet era when the figure was one for every 428 citizens. Not content with that improbable level of precision, she declares that it actually constitutes a growth of the organization (p. 23). Unless there is a printing error, this makes no sense. Two hundred thousand plus of that personnel total in any event is made up of border troops. No credence is given to official accounts that the organization has now been much reduced. Officially the figure is now around 70,ooo but in no way is this in line with the Albats hypothesis. She also asserts that time has proved her analysis correct. Others might be less sure. Russia has its human rights abuses still, but where one asks are the camps full of political prisoners. Has there really been no significant change? Indeed, the book was published in Russia in 1992.

Again, as a final aspect of hyperbole, the general reader deserves better than to be told that the Socialist Revolutionary Party was right wing (p. I4), and this is not the only infelicity. That said, the book is a lively presentation of some of the iniquities of this organization and of the threat it could come to pose in the hands of a more autocratic Russian regime, perhaps in the not so distant future." (Reviewed Work(s): KGB: State within a State by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick Review by: Julian Birch Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Oct., 1996), pp. 766-768. Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Stable URL: [13]--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• And who is the author of this review, Julian Birch? Is he well known as an expert on the KGB history? If it were a review by Amy Knight, then yes, it would worth something. You can "discredit" any academic source by citing such reviews. Want to find couple of critical reviews and denials on something like "Comrade J"? Yes, sure. But it does not prove that the source does not qualify as an RS per our policy. Reviewer tells: No credence is given to official accounts that the organization has now been much reduced. What? The reviewer trusts the FSB statements and does not even know that the number of FSB personnel is a state secret [14]. Of course Albats does not give any credence to official statements by the FSB because they serve to disinform the public. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You previous nick name implies that you are familiar with biophysics, and you know how science works. Julian Birch is a person who is sufficiently knowledgeable that the editor of the scholarly journal, The Slavonic and East European Review, published by Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, decided to ask them to write a review. Full stop. If you do not understand these things, then you are supposed to be more modest in your claims. If you understand this (and I am almost sure you do), you are expected to show more good faith. Obviously, that is not a personal attack, just a logical conclusion, because tertium non datur.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Did not you notice that your comment has absolutely nothing to do with improvement of this page? You are violating talk page guidelines again. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think, my comment has a direct relation to improvement of the article. You are trying to impose on us a questionable source, and I am trying to resist to that. Your argumentation is not compatible with your professional skills. I have to resort to this kind of arguments because other logical arguments are not working. You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person and simultaneously resort to arguments that are used only by poorly educated users. You either agree that a review published by a scholarly journal should be considered a top quality source or concede you are totally ignorant of peer-review procedure. In that case, I do not understand how you are capable of editing molecular biology articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, you are trying to insult me. I only said the critical review does not mean anything because (a) the author is not a well known expert on the subject, (b) his argument about the number of FSB personnel is ridiculous for anyone familiar for the subject, and (c) he criticized Albats for having an opinion. This is nonsense. Most authors of books and scientific review articles have an opinion. This is good. That's why there is a whole series of journals Current Opinion (Elsevier). My very best wishes (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if I wanted to insult you, I would be incapable of insulting you more than you yourself are doing. The Current opinion series includes journals that publish review articles (not opinia). I refuse to believe you are unaware of "Current opinion in Structural Biology", for example. Had you ever written any review? Don't tell me you hadn't. You wrote at least one review: in your PhD thesis, and you know what it is.

Re: "he criticized Albats for having an opinion." This is a direct misinterpetation of the source. Albats opinion is not criticised, the book is good in general, but the degree of fact checking and accuracy is questionable, according to the reviewer. In other words, Albats is a good book for a general reader, but is a poor source for numbers and some specific facts. That means, you can mention Albats opinion, but always describe her sources, for example, "in her book, Albats cited Komsomolstaya pravda tabloid, which says...", of "Albats cites a Guinness book that claims..." In addition, the attempt to present your favourable source as a fact and other sources as opinia is a standard pattern of a tendentious editor. Do you understand what I mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Of course the "Current opinion" publish reviews, but it is called "opinion" because editors expect from experts to express their opinion on the subject of their reviews. Albats does the same in her book (most authors do), which is good. That reviewer of her book, however, criticises her for having an opinion that KGB was bad (one should read whole review itself from the beginning). Yes, sure, it was bad, do you think otherwise? My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate summary of the review by Julian Birch. He notes that Albats' is "the work of an angry person" and admonishes that her "obvious anger" and style does a disservice to her material. There is no hint, however, that Birch takes offence in someone having a critical opinion of the KGB. I find it highly questionable that you proceed to posit an ethical question as if a critical assessment of Albats' work, evidence and argument implies any (positive) judgement about the KGB.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That was not a summary of the review by Birch. Here is link to review. Of course the reviewer does not tell that KGB was good, and I did not say it. Reviewer tells that work by Albats "is not a cool, balanced analysis of the agency", etc. Yes, that's true, but it does not undermine the book by Albats, as the author of this review tells. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The reviewer does not criticise the book in general, the review says the author is not accurate in details. That makes Albats a poor source for this particular article, not a bad source in general: this book is generally praised for giving a vivid picture of the actual state of things in the KGB empire. I think, it is a good source for general KGB related articles, but not for this one. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the Birch's review is generally positive. However, this is not relevant to the subject of our dispute, because in this positive review, a reviewer notes Albats is very inaccurate in details. Since you are to taking a general idea of the book (which seems correct), but cherry-picking details (despite the fact they have been uncritically taken from a dubious tabloid), a question rises about your sincere desire to improve Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I beg your pardon, @My very best wishes, but remember what Catherine Merridale wrote? One policeman Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death in batches in the back of a specially adapted airtight van. It is not up to you to disqualify that as "incorrect". Solzhenitsyn, which you value so highly, writes, that they (i.e. the executioners] hit upon a solution. Neither of these sources state that gas vans were used "by NKVD". Solzhenitsyn even does not name Berg as "inventor", i.e. the one who came up with the idea. Colton names Berg, but does not attribute the use to the NKVD as such and Gellately speaks of the Soviets without further specification. All four, i.e. Merridale, Colton, Solzhenitsyn and Gellately, speak of one Soviet gas van. Thus there are several reliable sources that present the same story with much differences in detail. It is not consistent with policy, namely WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE, to pick just the source that you like most and determine, e.g., that there were several Soviet gas vans.[15] If Albats is WP:BESTSOURCES and of equal prominence than the other sources is another matter. And the whole issue cannot be resolved by adding more and more quotes, because balance has to be kept in relation to the text on the Nazi gas vans which were employed on a much larger scale and were thus much more important than the Soviet one. My suggestion still is to focus upon what is actually known, i.e. the details upon which the sources agree.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean he alone killed all these people while driving a van? That would be strange. You are very welcome to summarize information by Merridale, Colton and Gellately (I did not read these books) and include your summary on the page. Unfortunately, they tell very little on the subject beyond mentioning the involvement of Berg. However, all sources that I read (about five of them, cited on this page above, including Solzhenitsyn) tell it was something accomplished by the organization, yes, with his "participation" or "under his command". None of the sources tell it was only one car. However, this source, for example explicitly tells there were many such cars (""Берг тогда являлся начальником оперативной группы по приведению в исполнение решений тройки УНКВД МО. С его участием были созданы автомашины, так называемые душегубки. В этих автомашинах перевозили арестованных, приговоренных к расстрелу, и по пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров они отравлялись газом." Google translate:

Berg was then the head of the task force to enforce the decisions of the UNKVD MO troika. With his participation, cars were created, so-called gas vans. These cars transported prisoners who were sentenced to be shot, and on the way to the place of execution of sentences they were poisoned with gas. Berg acknowledged that he organized the execution of sentences using a car (gas vans), explaining this by the fact that he was following the instructions of the NKVD Ministry of Defense ... "

My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This kind of argumentation is kind of an insult: we are serious and reasonable people, and we deserve less frivolous arguments. Of course, Berg was not the only person who did all of that. He was a head of the team that was engaged in killings. The question was if there was a single van or several, and if other teams were involved in gassing people using vans before, in parallel and after Berg's team. The answer is: there are no data to claim that ever happened.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a google translation of the source provided by MVBW (Kommersant): "But the greatest ingenuity was shown in Moscow. In 1990, I was shown the investigative case of the head of the administrative department of the NKVD of the Moscow region Isaiah Berg, who was arrested in 1937, which said:

"Berg was then the head of the task force to enforce the decisions of the UNKVD MO troika, which involved the creation of motor vehicles, the so-called gas vans, transporting prisoners who were sentenced to death, and gas poisoned en route to the execution site. acknowledged that he had organized the execution of sentences using a car (gas vans), explaining this by the fact that he was following the instructions of the NKVD Ministry of Defense and that without them it would be impossible to perform so much The number of executions to which the arrested were sentenced by three threes at a time .. From the stories of Berg's interrogations and from the conversations that went among the staff of the NKVD Ministry of Defense, it was known that the procedure for bringing the verdicts, organized by Berg, was disgusting: the condemned prisoners were stripped naked, bound, muzzled and thrown into the car. "The property of those arrested under the leadership of Berg was plundered."

It is clear that Berg explained his actions during interrogation, which means he was arrested, and the gas van usage was a part of the actions he was accused of. He clearly says he had to resort to this improvement, because he was incapable of killing so many people by ordinary means. Had he been instructed or authorised to use gas vans, he would definitely mention that during interrogation. I cannot understand why MVBW, who seems to be proficient in Russian, misinterpreted this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been pinged about this discussion on my Talk page, and I admit I have a hard time following. What is the disagreement about? Is there an edit that's being discussed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the main disagreement has been resolved. We identified several sources that are not accurate or make unneeded generalisations. We found that some sources claimed that the gas van was invented in the USSR and were routinely used by the secret police. In fact, the sources say about a single officer whose team used a van or few vans. The primary source these secondary sources rely upon is an interrogation protocol, where that officer explained why he decided to use the gas van (which seems to be his own initiative). We also agreed that no data are available on any informational exchange between NKVD and Nazi. I think, the dispute came to a logical end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; this makes sense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. After my initial edit the discussion started after these revisions: [16] [17] Since I distrust google translate my question was whether 1.) the sources in Russian given in the article back the claim that the Soviets (Berg in particular) "invented" the gas van, 2.) whether gas vans (plural) were used by "the NKVD" or whether there was just one used by some NKVD officers, in particular Berg and his underlings, for a limited time. Furthermore, I was curious, if these Russian sources like kommersant.ru or novayagazeta.ru are first rate RS or not. Discussion may have progressed, so that this is not an issue anymore, but I would not swear to that.--Assayer (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the article in Novaya Gazeta says Berg was participating in creation (construction, building) of the gas van. That article says about a single van, and it does not disclose the primary source all claims are based upon. The Kommersant article quotes the Berg's investigatory case (Berg himself was arrested soon and executed in 1938; that was a standard situation: all main Great Purge perpetrators, including Ezhov himself, were arrested and executed). The Kommersant article says Berg explained he decided to use a gas van (a single van) ("с применением автомашины" literally means "using a van") because it would not be possible to kill so many people by ordinary means. Interestingly, this document combines usage of the gas van with additional disgusting details of executions committed by Berg. It is quite likely that was one of the pretexts Berg was executed for, so I personally doubt if anybody tried to use this method of execution after Berg was convicted. In addition, there were no mass executions of that scale after the Great Purge, so there were no need in gas vans.

Two other mentions of the gas van in the Kommersant 's primary source speak about "gas vans" (" С его участием были созданы автомашины ["cars were built"], так называемые душегубки. ", and " без них невозможно было бы исполнить столь большое количество расстрелов,", ["without them it would be impossible...]), so it may be possible not a single, but several gas vans were built.

As far as I know, Kommersant was a very good source during those times. (Kommersant was a good and independent newspaper in 1990s, but I cannot tell anything about after it changed an owner. The author seems to cite a document that he saw in 1990 and it is quite possible it is classified now (the "archival revolution" has ended by the end of 1990s). Probably, it is the most reliable source available now (strictly speaking, least unreliable).

With regard to Novaya Gazeta, it is one of very few independent newspapers in Russia (as far as I know, I am not an expert). It may be trustworthy, although some degree of exaggeration or unneeded generalisation may take place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• The book by Yevgenia Albats is a perfectly good secondary English language source on the subject - you do not need translation. Yes, these Russian language sources tell essentially the same: there were many vans like that, but they do not tell how many, and how many people were actually "processed" through these vans (the overall number of people executed at Butovo firing range was more than 20 thousand). My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn as a source

I checked this source, and I see the following: "И – призываю к этому евреев. Раскаяться не за Троцкого-Каменева-Зиновьева, они и так на поверхности, от них и отмахнуться можно: "то были не евреи!" А – оглянуться честно на всю глубину раннесоветского угнетательского аппарата – на тех "незаметных", как Исай Давидович Берг (Berg.--PS), создавший знаменитую "душегубку" (gas van. --PS) [1390], самим же евреям на горе, и даже на ещё более незаметных, кто бумажки подкалывал в советском аппарате и никогда не вышел в публичность."

The reference 1390 is the reference to "Е. Жирнов. "Процедура казни носила омерзительный характер" // Комсомольская правда, 1990, 28 октября, с. 2.", i.e. to the Komsomolskaya pravda article. The author (Е. Жирнов) is the same as the author of the Kommersant article, and the source seems to be the same.

My conclusion: all sources the NKVD part of the article is based on (including Albats) are derivatives of one single article written by Е. Жирнов in 1990 and published in Комсомольская правда. All other authors including Е. Жирнов himself tell the same story but compose different details. The only source is the document Е. Жирнов saw in 1990 and used for his article. That means this WP article just shows an evolution of some urban legend.

By the way, taking into account that Solzhenitsyn's statement is a pure anti-Semitism, I'll remove it if no serious reason to keep this anti-Semitic source will be provided within next 24 hours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Are you telling that books by Merridale, Colton and Gellately (cited above) are also based on the "urban legend"?
2. What WP:RS tell this is an "urban legend"?
3. Solzhenitsyn is currently cited on the page. It was included by another participant, let's AGF. How on the Earth this text can be viewed "antisemitic"? Here is it: "I. D. Berg was ordered to carry out the decisions of the NKVD troika of Moscow Oblast, and Berg was decently carrying out this assignment: he was driving people to the executions by shooting. But, when in Moscow Oblast there came to be three troikas having their sessions simultaneously, the executioners could not cope with the load. They hit upon a solution: to strip the victims naked, to tie them up, plug their mouths and throw them into a closed truck, disguised from the outside as a bread van. During transportation the fuel gases came into the truck, and when delivered to the farthest [execution] ditch the arrestees were already dead." My very best wishes (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not write "urban legend", I wrote "development of a urban legend". One single article (KP) cited a single primary source, which seems to be the only source of information for Albats, Solzhenitsyn and Novaya. It is not clear where did Colton take his information (I couldn't find a reference in his book), but, taking into account he tells the same story, the source was probably the same. Gellately is not mentioned in the article.

Colton also uses the same KP article as a source (see page 841).

Gellately, p. 286 writes "The Soviets sometimes used a gas van (dushegubka), as in Moscow during the 1930s, but how extensive that was needs further investigation." The ref 39 is "KP (Komsomolskaya pravda) 1992, Oct 28. 2. It is probably a typo, not 1992, but 1990, because the date (28 Sept) and a page 2 are the same as in "Е. Жирнов. «Процедура казни носила омерзительный характер» // Комсомольская правда, 1990, 28 октября, с. 2."

Merridale tells exactly the same story (" Other methods were also used on an experimental basis. One policeman, Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death in batches in the back of a specially adapted airtight van.43 He then had them buried in the mass graves at Butovo, often in the trenches that other victims had already dug, where they already lay"), and it is highly likely that the source is the same. I need to find a hard copy of this book.

My conclusion: unless you prove the opposite, all these sources use a single document (the same as the original KP article was using), and all those numerous citations are intended to create a misleading impression of an abundance of information on that subject. The more I am digging in, the more I understand that we are dealing not with multiple independent sources, but with a single source (the article is published in 1990 in "Komsomolskaya Pravda") which is being reproduced by other authors.

By the way, if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a full quote:

"И изобрёл их (да не в одиночку, наверно, но организатор изобретения был он) – Исай Давидович Берг, начальник АХО (адмхозотдела) УНКВД Московской области. Вот почему бывает важно знать, кто занимал вовсе и не верхние посты. А получилось так. И. Д. Бергу было поручено исполнять решения «тройки» УНКВД МО – и Берг исправно выполнял поручение: возил на расстрелы. Но когда в Московской области стали заседать одновременно три «тройки» – уже справиться было расстрельщикам невозможно. Тогда и догадались: жертв раздевать догола, связывать, затыкать рты и бросать в закрытый грузовик, снаружи замаскированный под хлебный фургон. На перегоне выхлопные газы шли внутрь грузовика – и до дальнего рва арестанты были уже «готовенькие». (Надо сказать, что и сам Берг вскоре был расстрелян, в 1939, – но не за эти злодейства, разумеется, а по обвинению в «заговоре». И в 1956 – благополучно реабилитирован, хотя в следственном деле его и тогда хранилась, и дохранилась вот до новейшего времени, и прочтена журналистами – история этого душегубного изобретения!)[883]"

The ref 883 is the reference to the same KP article. That means this source just re-tells the same fact in different words. I am going to rewrite this section accordingly to make clear that all sources refer to the same story described in KP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1. These 3 books were directly cited just above by Assayer [18]. All of them mention it. Please note that all these sources (probably around seven of them) are independent sources per WP:RS. For example, when you are removing this, you are removing a view by an expert on KGB affairs and a Harvard graduate (Yevgenia Albats), published in co-authorship in her book, not "tabloid". In addition, all materials published in Komsomolskaya Pravda and Argumenty i Fakty are "reliably published". They can be used per WP:RS. How exactly? That can be a matter of discussion.
2. So, there are no RS telling about the "development of a urban legend"? If so, everything you just said above is your personal WP:OR.
3. You tell: "if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you". What do you mean? My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I am grateful to your stubbornness, because without you I would never decided to dig so deeply into sources. I think now it is a time to stop and concede an obvious thing: all sources tell the same story they took from a single 1990 article published in KP. We should clearly explain that in the article. We together did a nice job.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an important thing about secondary RS in general. For example, telling "the opinion of author X published is his book A was based solely on the primary source B" (simply because he made a reference to the primary source B in his book) would be wrong and WP:OR. That's why we are using secondary RS. It is the author of the book and presumably an expert (not a wikipedian!) decides if the sources he used were trustworthy. More important, he is using his own knowledge of the subject (may be this is based on other sources which where not used in the book or on his own research - who knows?). So, we simply make a reference directly to the secondary source, not on the primary or other sources used by the expert (citing them too would also be OK if they qualify as WP:RS). This can be said about all books cited here, i.e. Merridale, Colton, Gellately, Albats and Solzhenitsyn. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

KP article is not a primary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If so, it should be cited along with all other sources on the subject - per WP:NPOV. What exactly it tells? Any quote or summary you would like to include? My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we can trust Solzhenitsyn and later Kommersant article, which seem to transmit the old KP article correctly. However, we must say that the KP article was published in 1990, it was used by Solzhenitsyn (I think we can keep the quote) and later it was mentioned by other sources (including Albats). Since Albats and other authors do not mention any additional sources, the only thing we can write is that the KP story was cited by other sources. By no means we can present Albats, Colton et al as independent sources: all of them are based on a single KP article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Petrov does not disclose his sources, but he tells exactly the same story, which means it is highly unlikely that he was using a different document. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• If an author of the book tells: "my conclusion/view was based entirely on this source", then yes. If he or she does not, but simply give a reference, then no, that would be WP:OR. Like I said, maybe his conclusion/view was based on other sources which where not used in the book, on his own knowledge of the subject, or on his own research - who knows? My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If some author performs analysis of sources, yes, I agree. However, in our case that is not the case: Solzhenitsyn openly says he just re-tells a newspaper story (the only conclusions he himself is doing are purely anti-Semitic statements, which we are not going to reproduce), other authors perform no analysis: they just mention this case very briefly. The only exception is Albats. In her case, we must say that Albats, based on the KP article, draws a conclusion that (blahblahblah). We must clearly separate the facts (a document from the KP/Kommersant articles) from opinia (conclusions Albats draws solely on this single doculent).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Where "Solzhenitsyn openly says he just re-tells a newspaper story"? I do not see it in quotation above. To the contrary, he provides a lot of detail and tells about it as an indisputable fact. And he is definitely an expert on such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"А вот поразительное промелькнувшее в 1990 сообщение, из которого мы узнали, что знаменитые душегубки изобретены, оказывается, вовсе не у Гитлера во Вторую Мировую войну — а в советском НКВД в 1937. И изобрёл их (да не в одиночку, наверно, но организатор изобретения был он) — Исай Давидович Берг, начальник АХО (адмхозотдела) УНКВД Московской области. Вот почему бывает важно знать, кто занимал вовсе и не верхние посты. А получилось так. И.Д. Бергу было поручено исполнять решения «тройки» УНКВД МО — и Берг исправно выполнял поручение: возил на расстрелы. Но когда в Московской области стали заседать одновременно три «тройки» — уже справиться было расстрелыцикам невозможно. Тогда и догадались: жертв раздевать догола, связывать, затыкать рты и бросать в закрытый грузовик, снаружи замаскированный под хлебный фургон. На перегоне выхлопные газы шли внутрь грузовика — и до дальнего рва арестанты были уже «готовенькие». (Надо сказать, что и сам Берг вскоре был расстрелян, в 1939, — но не за эти злодейства, разумеется, а по обвинению в «заговоре». И в 1956 — благополучно реабилитирован, хотя в следственном деле его и тогда хранилась, и дохранилась вот до новейшего времени, и прочтена журналистами — история этого душегубного изобретения!)[39]"

Ref 39 is the KP article. Solzhenitsyn clearly says he just tells the story he read in KP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

So, after reading this publication, Solzenitsyn (someone with enormous expertise in this area), believes that the story should be treated as an indisputable fact and provides his own summary. That's fine. We should cite Solzhenitsyn.My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, I proposed to quote Solzhenitsyn because the KP article is not available (I didn't find it in the archive so far). The story will be as follows: KP published the article,(ref) which according to Solzhenitsyn(ref) says: "blahblah". This story was reproduced by Gellately,(ref) Merridale,(ref), Kommersant(ref). Based on the same source, Albats concludes that....(ref).

That is what we can write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Solzhenitsyn's enormous expertise. I think you are right, so we can conclude Solzhenitsyn was not aware of any mention of gas van usage before 1990, so we can safely conclude the KP article was the first mention of NKVD gas vans in books or media.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a few things that I would like to comment on. First, in this context I find it inappropriate to use the term “urban legend” at all. Second, I do not consider Solzhenitsyn’s book to be a first-rate source. It has drawn criticism by reviewers for factual inaccuracies and the author has been charged with antisemitism. Historians have dealt with the issue of Soviet gas vans only briefly and that demonstrates that this issue is not considered to have had a significant impact. In his work ‘’Verbrannte Erde’’ (2012) about Stalin’s rule of violence the German historian Jörg Baberowski, e.g., recounts the methods employed by the NKVD executioners to kill their victims and he spends two sentences on the Gas van (with a reference to Colton). I got the impression that generally the interest primarily stems from the importance of the German gas vans and the perceived irony that the Soviets might have come up with a gas van first. In fact, Holocaust deniers relish this. But, and this is important in respect to the reputation Solzhenitsyn's 200 years enjoys among historians, I have not found a single reference to this book by a historian of Stalinist terror, yet. Third, there is more recent research. I found an essay in German by Nikita Petrov on the death penalty in the SU from 2006 that quotes KP and Lidija Golovkova: ‘’V Rodnom Kraju’’. In: Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938., Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 9-180, here 72-85. The evidence is from an investigation from 1956 whether Berg ought to be rehabilitated. The evidence is only testimony. Thus, I object to adding numerous (verbatim) citations which basically all tell the same story. While in historiography on the Great Purge you’ll find one or two sentences (even in Albats’ work), Wikipedia has begun to recount the same story three times now.--Assayer (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Yes, this is essentially the same story, and it received less coverage than Nazi vans. We could make a brief summary of the story, remove quotation of Solzhenitsyn and put quotation of Albats (which is not very long) to footnote. Done. As about citations, if you want to add or improve something, you are welcome. Anything else? My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Assayer, under "urban legend" I meant not the very fact of gas van development and usage, but the mechanism that converts the information taken from a single printed source into something that is ostensibly known to many authors from different sources. In other words, "urban legend" refers not to the very fact, but to the phenomenon when the knowledge grows as an avalanche, despite the fact that there only information available to us was just a single source. Look, the article cited Solzhenitsyn, Albats, Merridale and others as if they discovered the gas van story independently, and each of them was telling about different aspects of this story. That is exactly how urban legends form. That means, the word "urban legend" is quite appropriate.

Nikita Pertov professionally studies Great Purge, and he probably had an independent access to the document Zhirnov saw in 1990. Alternatively, he just tells the same story he read in KP. Unfortunately, in his article in Novaya he does not disclose his sources, so we just can guess. I think, the current version is definitely an improvement, but I propose to clarify this story further: the first mention of GV was in the KP article, other sources just describe this story. Since this source is unavailable to me (I didn't find KP online archive), either Solzhenitsyn (who just re-tell this article) or Zhirnov himself (in Kommersant) can be used to describe what exactly the KP article was saying. Merrydale and others should be mentioned to demonstrate that this story is cited (not independently discovered) by English sources, and the opinion of Albats can be mentioned, since she made some generalisation. However, a reservation should be made that that was Alpats's opinion, not an independent discovery. I'll modify this text later when I will have time.

Thank you everybody. I enjoyed disputing with you.--02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

They are criticized in Santiago Alvarez' and Pierre Marais' book, 'The Gas Vans: A Critical Study'. The Gas Vans: A Critical Study, Washington, DC: The Barnes Review; 1st edition (1 Sept. 2011). ISBN-10: 1591481007. ISBN-13: 978-1591481003 Other sources: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2012/volume_4/number_3/the_gas_vans.php and http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2013/volume_5/number_1/the_three_photographs_of_an_alleged_gas_van.php

Lute88, you undid my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gas_van&diff=656492727&oldid=656492153

Why? It is sourced. You have to have criticism.

Should be in the text, since not everyone swallows the gas van tale. --105.4.5.4 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

Poeticbent, please be more elucidative about your reversion's reason. Carlotm (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't take it personally. The changes were unwarranted. WP:CITEFOOT recommends to format repeat citations like this: <ref name="name"> so there was no viable reason to go over everything and change it. And also, redacting someone else's perfectly good edit can be perceived as patronizing sometimes. I hope you'll understand. Poeticbent talk
• I agree with Poeticbent and the fact is the description changes to the photo in the article, Carlotm, were not needed. Kierzek (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Poeticbent, your call on WP:CITEFOOT is totally out of place here since I changed only those ref names, and even not all of them, which were not repeated citations. As per the changes on someone else's perfectly good edit , as you wrote, I have some difficulties on understanding what you are referring to. I suppose not where I tried to avoid a clear repetition. In fact you partially retained that part. (Incidentally that is quite surprising. How can you revert a revision keeping in the same time some of it and changing some other parts?)

It cannot be that you liked the previous incorrect position of {{Wikisource}} and {{commons category}}, which you restored, by the way. So it must be about the caption underneath the picture which I wanted simply to reduce in length, so much so that I reduced also the font dimension. Anyway from a stylistic point of view, to start a sentence with a negation is not the maximum of the beauty.

Don't get me wrong; I don't pretend to be perfect, anybody may change my revision by editing. Nevertheless when a revision has some value in it, like mine, (and you should fairly admit it, having retained part of it) the reverting process should be banned; in fact it is banned. Carlotm (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No evidence of gas vans used outside of the Soviet Union?

What's this, then? https://www.ns-archiv.de/einsatzgruppen/gaswagen/rauff/rauff-santiago.php –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Add'l sources

There's a section on the "Gas van" in The Holocaust: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection, 4 volumes. Not sure which volume.

There's also a brief mention in Westermann of the vans being used by the Order Police in Kharkiv, presumably in late 1941.

• Westermann, Edward B. (2005). Hitler's Police Battalions: Enforcing Racial War in the East. Kansas City: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1724-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"...who acted on the orders from the higher NKVD administration"

This statement is being added persistently, although it is ambiguous and unclear. If it means Berg was acting under general control of NKVD, that is trivial and obvious. If this statement means he created and used gas vans following the directives of his NKVD supervisors, that is incorrect, because he himself explained the decision to use gas vans by the need to accomplish the directive to kill a large number of people. If Berg got a directive to use gas vans, he would definitely said about that openly and clearly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This appears in the book by Solzhenitsyn ("I. D. Berg was ordered to carry out the decisions of the NKVD troika of Moscow Oblast"), and in the article from Kommersant [19] (that was already cited above, "Берг тогда являлся начальником оперативной группы по приведению в исполнение решений тройки УНКВД МО. ..."). This is actually based on his NKVD case, a primary source that author of the publication in Kommersant (not we) considers an important source. Quite possibly both Solzenitsyn, and author of the article in Kommersant, saw the same original NKVD case, but we do not really know and should not speculate. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody claims executions was Berg's own initiative. Obviously, he was doing that according to the order of his supervisors. The question was if the construction and usage of gas vans was the order of his supervisors. And the answer is "no", because otherwise Berg would refer to this order during interrogation. But he didn't, he explained he had to make and use gas vans, because othervise it would be impossible to perform a massive execution. That is the point.

And, please, stop referring to Solzhenitsyn as an independent source. The sources say: Berg was ordered to organise mass executuions, and he decided to make and use gas vans for that. The orders demanded executions, but there was no order to build and use gas vans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• You tell: "Obviously, he was doing that according to the order of his supervisors." OK. Then why did you remove it [20] with edit summary: "It is not clear that usage of gas vans was authorised by Berg supervisors...". My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:DUCK, if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll. Cherry-piking my own words during a discussion with me is not a sign of a good faith. I wrote "Nobody claims executions was Berg's own initiative. Obviously, he was doing that according to the order of his supervisors. The question was if the construction and usage of gas vans was the order of his supervisors." No sources exist that contain a claim that Berg got an order to construct and use gas vans. However, the statement made by Berg during interrogation demonstrate he was trying to provide some logical reason for using gas vans. If there was an order, he would simply say: "I was ordered to build and use gas vans". However, he does not say that. Therefore, my edit summary is quite correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Blanking of information reg. Isay Berg.

Several edits, specifically by IP 8.25.157.162 as well as user:Paul Siebert, have removed information reg. Isay Berg, claiming it is irrelevant. However, the same kind of information for other persons is readily available in different articles, and since Isay Berg does not seem to have his own Wikipedia page, there is little space elsewhere to put this information. Furthermore, "Berg" is not a typical Russian surname, and might confuse the reader. Should this information be included or excluded?

I have no idea what exactly do you mean under "other persons". Anyway, the information about ethnicity is relevant when the ethnicity has some relationship to the events discussed. In this particular case, I don't see why it is helpful, especially, taking into account that the official Soviet policy in 1920s-30s was internationalism, so one's ethnicity was absolutely unimportant.

With regard, to ""Berg" is not a typical Russian surname, and might confuse the reader." Not more that Zukerberg is "not a typical American name". Russia was a very polyethnic country, comparable to the modern US. Do we provide an information about ethnicity of every American to avoid ostensible "confusion"? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Political bias? POV?

The April and Semptember head sections of this article are different. The edit looks politically motivated. Comparsion: https://files.catbox.moe/b0c68b.png

The April version was good, there was no need to edit it this way. DerElektriker (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

IP edits like this went against consensus. --Assayer (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, this version is correct, and it should be restored for several reasons:

• The first statement from the current version "A gas van or gas wagon (Russian: душегубка (dushegubka); " implies that that was the name given to the Soviet gas van. In reality, it is not, it is a colloquial name for German vans that were used by Germans in WWII.
• During the long talk page discussion, we came to a conclusion that the whole story about Soviet gas vans was based on a single 1990 tabloid article, which discussed one case of gas van usage. A current version of the article creates a wrong impression that gas van usage was equally widespread in Germany and USSR.
• During previous talk page discussion, we found no evidences confirming that the invention (as a single act) of a gas van took place in USSR, and Germans took this idea from them.

Taking into account all of that, it would be correct if the article focused on Nazi vans, and add, in a separate small section, some info about a Soviet case.

I am going to restore the NPOV and balanced version from the above permalink.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Soviet Union section

I restored an older version per sources. The direct quotation of Albats is important because she mentioned both Soviet and Nazi vans together, as a part of the same story, although I did not find any source to establish that Nazi actually "borrowed" the idea of the vans from the NKVD, beyond general knowledge about the Gestapo–NKVD conferences. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to get this straight: You restored a version that claims in the second sentence of the lead that the gas van was invented in the Soviet Union and features actually more words on the alleged single (!) "gas van" than about the Nazi method of extermination, although you did not find any source to establish that Nazi actually "borrowed" the idea of the vans from the NKVD? In my view that's a flagrant violation of both WP:V and WP:NPOV and given the lengthy discussions that we already had on this issue I will not repeat my arguments and evidence.--Assayer (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it should not tell it was invented in the Soviet Union in the lead - that was your only objection if I understand correctly. Here is main problem with version you just restored. It incorrectly claims that the only one source (Komsomolskaya Pravda) documented the use of gas vanes by the NKVD. It tells: According to Komsomolskaya Pravda article, one case of gas van usage was documented in the 1930s, but makes a reference to several a lot more reliable sources, such as the book by Albats. Saying it was only one source is WP:OR. We have multiple (5 to 6) RS claiming this. Moreover, all sources tell these were multiple vans. "One case" is misleading. In addition, since there were disagreements, we must quote sources directly (that is what I did). In particular, the book by Albats tells "trucks" [plural!]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, about "invented". This source, for example, tells it was invented by the NKVD. We do not know if it was re-invented independently by Nazi or they simply borrowed this idea from NKVD. But this is a completely different question. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Assayer: Do you have an access to Albatz's book? Does she use any other source besides 1990 Komsomolskaya Pravda article for gas vans? It is really interesting to verify the origin of this story. Personally, I am surprised that Solzhenitsyn, who made a tremendous work andn who collected tons of facts about Great Purge, was not aware of gas vans before 1990.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(a) Yes, Albatz mentioned this article in Komsomolskaya Pravda, but she did not say it was her only source about it. (b) Komsomolskaya Pravda is indeed a tabloid. That's why we need a reliable secondary source, the book by a recognized expert in this field, Albats. If she tells something, then this is her view published in an academic book, and this is something a lot more reliable than a publication in tabloid from WP:RS perspective. (c) "Solzhenitsyn ... was not aware of gas vans before 1990". Said who? What RS make such claim? (c) Paul, I suspect this is covered by your topic ban, because we just discussed a possible cooperation of NKVD and Nazi just before WWII in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It incorrectly claims that the only one source (Komsomolskaya Pravda) documented the use of gas vanes by the NKVD … but makes a reference to several a lot more reliable sources, such as the book by Albats.

• All the sources cited refer to the same case associated with the name of Isay Berg and, awaiting further evidence, it is a single case.

• Only one source is named (Komsomolskaya Pravda) for the simple reason that the other sources cited in the footnote mainly refer to the (Komsomolskaya Pravda) or secondary works citing the Komsomolskaya Pravda. The primary sources quoted by the Komsomolskaya Pravda have since been edited, namely testimony from an investigation from 1956 whether Berg ought to be rehabilitated. But it is still only one documented case.

• That various historians cite a certain source does not mean that all of a sudden, the number of sources increases. As a matter of fact, there is only one documented case.

& Yes, Albatz mentioned this article in Komsomolskaya Pravda, but she did not say it was her only source about it.

If the topic wasn’t so serious, I may have been inclined to laugh about the absurdity of this argument. Albats presents exactly one footnote (no. 47 on p. 101) for her claims and this footnote contains exactly one reference, namely Komsomolskaya Pravda, October 28, 1990. Any speculation about possible sources that Albats may have had, but somehow forgot to mention, is absurd and absolutely irrelevant for Wikipedia.

I may sum up some of my basic concerns from the previous discussion (June 2018, see above):

1. Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together is considered unreliable and antisemitic by scholars.
2. Albats’ book has received reviews which pointed out her cavalier attitude towards evidence and she herself admits to her emotional style. It is an opinionated source of questionable reliability.
3. Several scholarly works (Merridale, Colton, and Gellately) confine themselves to a few sentences and speak of one Soviet gas van.
4. The vast scholarly literature on gas vans focus upon Nazi gas vans and does not even mention any Soviet gas van.
5. All evidence is from an investigation from 1956 whether Berg ought to be rehabilitated. The evidence is only testimony.

In spite of all this you construct a narrative that The gas vans were first used by the Soviet secret police in 1936 and that these vans, i.e. of the very same type, were then somehow used by Nazi Germany. It does not make much difference whether you call it “invention”, or simply suggest that the Soviets came up with it first. The narrative as a whole is untenable. You furthermore present a chapter claiming The first usage of gas vans was described in the Soviet Union in 1930s and so forth, including lengthy quotes by Albats and Solzhenitsyn (see above). That is not only grossly out of proportion, poorly sourced and drenched with editorial bias, thus given undue weight to a small aspect of the topic. It is also a misrepresentation of the scholarly literature, because none of the more reputable authors’ that you cite (Merridale, Colton) speaks of “the Soviet secret police”, but of a single incident (Merridale: “One policeman. Isai D. Berg, gassed some of his prisoners to death...") and no one associates the Soviet gas van with the gas vans used by the Nazis.

The only kind of writers besides Albats that I know of, who draw a direct line between Soviet gas vans and Nazi gas vans and who speak of gas vans as a Soviet “invention” are Holocaust deniers such as Udo Walendy, Friedrich P. Berg, Germar Rudolf and Santiago Alvarez. Whereas if you turn to one of the standard encyclopedias of the Holocaust like the one edited by Paul R. Bartrop (2017) you will find no mention of Soviet gas vans: ‘’Gas vans were used by the Nazis to murder Jews and other prisoners through asphyxiation by carbon monoxide. As such a gas van was equipped a mobile gas chamber.” (p. 234). That may illustrate how far you have moved the article away from commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.

The version that I restored was agreed upon in June 2018 after a discussion that I myself initiated, and this version has been relatively stable since then. I strongly objected and reverted your recent edits, thus, in line with WP:BRD, we are now discussing these issues. It is not up to you to restore your changes during the discussion and I would suggest that you revert yourself.--Assayer (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You are missing my points.

1. This is not a single source (Komsomolskaya Pravda) claiming that gas vans were first used/invented in the Soviet Union in 1930s (as old version misleadingly tells [21]), but five or six secondary RS, including three books by highly reputable authors saying this. Per WP:RS, we must use most reliable sources such as books by academic researchers. That is what I do. That does not prevent citation of the Komsomolskaya Pravda as well. To clarify it, I now provided direct attribution to several most reliable sources. They are not saying exactly the same.
2. Saying that all these authors/RS, including Solzhenitsyn used only Komsomolskaya Pravda as a source of their information is WP:OR simply because these books/RS do not say it.
3. Saying "single use" is misleading because all sources say about using van(s) systematically and over a period of time.
4. "these vans, i.e. of the very same type, were then somehow used by Nazi Germany". Yes, this is a conjecture explicitly made in the book by Albats, by Solzenitsyn, and others."Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built" (Albats). Solzenitsyn is an expert/notable author on the subject of NKVD repressions.
5. "The evidence is only testimony.". Which source(s) make such claim? I did not see it at all.
6. A book about Holocaust does not mention Soviet gas vans. Yes, sure, because they were not a part of Holocaust. Only sources about NKVD/KGB tell about it.
7. You more than welcome to significantly expand the part about Nazi Germany to improve the balance. I included direct citation of Albats and Solzenitsyn only because this became a matter of prolonged debate.
8. If you think that current version misrepresents anything (old version clearly does, as I have explained a couple of times), you are welcome to fix it in the current version of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ad 1.) There might be hundreds of reliable sources on a certain aspect. WP:RS still does not require that every single one of them is cited. The version which you label “misleading” does not state that Komsomolskaya Pravda is the only secondary source, in fact, several more sources are cited in the footnotes. Instead it makes prominent use of one source, namely Komsomolskaya Pravda and with good reason, because, in contrast to what you claimed on WP:AE, namely that Albats would NOT refer/cite to Komsomolskaya Pravda, it is indeed the (only) source cited by Albats and Solzhenitsyn.

ad 2.) If you insist to make a fool of yourself, you may proceed. The WP:ONUS to demonstrate, that Albats and Solzhenitsyn used other sources than Komsomolskaya Pravda, is on you. I’ll rather stick to what they wrote about their sources in their works.

ad 3.) On this talk page you have been constantly (see, e.g., 9 June 2018, 20:21) claiming that all sources, including Gellateley, Merridale and Colton, speak of vans (plural) although Gellateley, Merridale and Colton have been repeatedly quoted verbatim on this talk page and none of these sources speaks of more than one gas van (even Solzenitsyn doesn’t). Still you keep insisting that all sources say about using van(s) systematically and over a period of time.. One might dismiss it as a case of WP:HUH? and move on, but you even charged Paul Siebert with misrepresenting the sources.[22] So let’s once again take a look at Colton, p. 286 used as a source for the sentence: “A team of secret police officers was suffocating batches of prisoners with engine fumes in camouflaged cars while driving out to the mass graves at Butovo firing range, where the prisoners were subsequently buried.” Colton’s words are: “Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a [!] gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an [!] airtight lorry camouflaged as a [!] bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butova.” (emphasis mine) In English “a bread van” is singular and means one. It is worth noting that an earlier version with the Colton reference [23] that you used on WP:AE correctly spoke of “a camouflaged bread van”, but you changed that.[24] That’s what I call a “misrepresentation”, to put it mildly.

ad 4.) Albats and Solzenitsyn are highly opinionated sources. To transpose their POV as fact into the lead of a Wikipedia article is an abuse of WP:NPOV. Solzenitsyn’s Archipel Gulag is an important work and he was a gifted novelist, but his 200 Years Together has been thrashed by historians. In fact, I find it unbearable to use Solzenitsyn’s 200 Years Together, in which he highlighted that Berg was Jewish and “created the infamous “gas wagon” which later brought so much affliction on the Jews themselves”.

ad 5.) It has already been discussed. Evgeny Zhirnov, who wrote the article in the Komsomolskaya Pravda back in 1990, reported that he had been shown the files on Berg’s case. In 2004 these files, i.e. the evidence, was presented in L. Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju; Dokumenty, Svidetel'stva, Sud'by, Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 72ff. It would be worth while to discuss the historicity of the Soviet Gas vans based upon the available primary sources, e.g. whether Berg’s confessions, which he withdrew during his trial, were coerced through torture. But that would be OR.

ad 6.) That the Soviet gas van was not a part of Holocaust, is what I am arguing here. By admitting that my argument is valid you directly contradict the claims that you emphasized sub your No. 4.

ad 7.) I included direct citation of Albats and Solzenitsyn only because this became a matter of prolonged debate. equally contradicts your claims sub No. 4. Besides, the debate became prolonged, because you insisted (e.g. as early as 1 September 2013, 14:28) and still insist on keeping these quotes in the article.

ad 8.) Yes, I will proceed to fix the misrepresentations by reverting to an older version, removing references to Soviet gas vans from the lead as they were not a part of Holocaust, and expanding the history of the gas vans.--Assayer (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think that was clear enough.

1. You say:"The version which you label “misleading” does not state that Komsomolskaya Pravda is the only secondary source". No, it does [25]. It tells: "According to Komsomolskaya Pravda article, one case of gas van usage was documented in the 1930s in the Soviet Union. According to this publication,... ". This is clearly misleading: this is not according only to an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda, and what does it mean: "a single case"? One truck? One trip? None of the sources which describe this in more detail (Albats, Solzhenitsyn, Petrov and Golovkova - see below) uses wording like " one case", "one truck", "one trip", etc. To the contrary, all of them tell about multiple trucks (plural) used over a period of time.
2. Speaking about WP:ONUS, there was a long-term consensus to include these materials and all these sources about Soviet vans. I am only refining what these sources actually tell. We have no obligation to investigate why any notable historians, experts or scholars (Albats, Solzhenitsyn, Petrov, Gellateley, Merridale and Colton) came to their conclusions. We do not know it. Speculating about it here is WP:OR. That is what you do. We only cite or summarize exactly what multiple RS tell on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad 1.) I cannot help you with your inferences. The qualifier only has never been in the text and if the text were intended to suggest that it was only according to one source, it does not make much sense to provide further sources in the footnote, does it? Paul Siebert has explained what he meant with “single case”, namely usage of gas vans (or a gas van, it is unclear how many vans were used) by Berg's team for Butovo executions. You may quibble about the wording, but you are not warranted to insist that “all sources” speak of multiple gas vans, when they clearly don’t.

Ad 2.) The inclusion of these materials has been challenged time and again for years. I followed WP:CCC more than a year ago, whereas you keep repeating the same argument over and over again and insist on assigning undue importance to a single aspect of the history of gas vans. Historiography is no mumbo jumbo, but depends upon verifiability. Historians’ conclusions are verified by the sources that they cite, not by the sources that they do not cite. We only cite or summarize exactly … – yes, but you don’t. (see my previous contribution ad 3.) --Assayer (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Right now, this is NOT old version. I made an effort to fix everything per your suggestions, including expanding the part about Nazi Germany. If you want to work collaboratively by fixing something in the current version and respect WP:NOR and other policies, you are very welcome. I am not even sure what we disagree about. Could you please write down what is exactly the issue we disagree about (as if you would asked at an WP:RfC). Then perhaps it will appear that I agree with you. You tell: The inclusion of these materials has been challenged time and again for years.. No, as matter of fact, they remained on the page during several last years, including the year when I did not edit this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you just want to restore 2 phrases: ""According to Komsomolskaya Pravda article, one case of gas van usage was documented in the 1930s in the Soviet Union. According to this publication,...", then I would suggest you to post an RfC, and your suggestion will be defeated as an obvious example of WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you still do not know where we disagree, then it is a more serious case of WP:HUH? than I thought. Please reread the preceding discussion. If you deny that the materials have been challenged, please reread the talk page as a whole and remind yourself of your edits such as this[26] If you think that these materials have remained on this page even during the last year, please check the version history. In June 2018, e.g., you yourself abtained from quoting Solzenitsyn "per talk"[27] In June 2018 we found a new consensus. On 28 September 2019 you made a WP:BOLD edit, which is fine, but was challenged and reverted by me almost instantly, so according to WP:CYCLE we are now discussing your contribution. Still you insisted on your contribution, which is not fine. Expanding the part about Nazi Germany by copying poorly sourced information from another article is not helpful but conflicts with WP:CWW. Therefore I will proceed to fix the issues myself. --Assayer (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

During this discussion you did not propose anything like "here is my suggested version:"..."" beyond telling that you want to revert to old version which clearly contains WP:OR, as I explained. Imagine that you would post an RfC about a disgreement. What would you suggest? My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that you just let me work on the article, instead of frantically editing both article and talk page.--Assayer (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, but please fix current version of the page, instead of making a blind revert to a version of the page that clearly includes WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• I too have concerns about these edits [28] & [29] as the previous version of the article had been achieved through extended discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have fully explained everything in the thread just above and in another below. Old version for the Soviet Union (one that is currently reverted back to by Assayer) contains obvious WP:OR - as I explained above. Also note that Assayer excluded Soviet vans from the lead, although they are described on the page. Please make any changes you like and tell me here when you are done. Then I will take a look and either will try to fix something or will post an RfC about it. Another option would be to make a post on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't wait the round about 90 minutes I needed to work on the article, although I used an in use-template? Yes, I insist that Soviet vans are not mentioned in the lead, because given the importance of gas vans in the Holocaust it would be misleading to mention them. I took your concerns into account and rewrote the section on Soviet vans. I consider the book by Vatlin to be the best source available in English on Berg's bio. Vatlin does not mention the use of gas vans. Berg was chief of the NKVD office in Vereia district (p. 12), before he started his career in Moscow in the summer of 1937. That makes it unlikely that he devised gas vans as early as 1936. Anyway, the footnotes should be more transparent and more easier to follow on now.--Assayer (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In principle, I do not mind to any significant rewrites. However, what is happening with your current version? You excluded at will a number of WP:RS and claims made by these RS - just because you do not like them. Doing so is explicitly against WP:NPOV, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Moreover, "That makes it unlikely that he devised gas vans as early as 1936." is your WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you recently agree on WP:AE that the book by Solzenitsyn currently cited on the page is unfortunate choice? Still you keep reinserting it over and over again.The faults of Albats' book have been discussed several times. Rereading the discussion you will find that this is not about what I like. NPOV is exactly my concern. Not all sources extant need to be cited, let alone quoted. The key word is "significant". Even all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Once again, the WP:ONUS is on you to seek consensus. Finally, WP:OR does not apply on the talk page. In fact, it is indispensible to compare sources to assess their reliability. For example, when a newspaper or even a tabloid makes a claim, but this claim is implicitly contradicted by evidence to be found in a scholarly work, the reliability of the claim is called into question.--Assayer (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I explained what is problem with your current version. Did you finish creating your preferred version of the page? Please tell me when you do. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the reliably sourced section on the Soviet Union, and also add mention of it in the lede. Please achieve concensus here first before removing them, I have read the arguments by Assayer and am not convinced by them. —Nug (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nug Did you notice, that you restored newly added material - in the words of Mvbw: Right now, this is NOT old version - that has been challenged on the talk page and should not be restored according to WP:BRD? I don't see a modified solution that reflects the key aspects of my remarks. Since you appear not to be convinced by my arguments, how do you suggest that we deal with the multiple RS, that state that the first Gas vans were invented, constructed and used by Nazi Germany in 1940? How did you determine that these sources are somehow inferior to those claiming that the first Gas van was used by the Soviets? --Assayer (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is claiming who invented gas vans first, nobody is saying the Nazis invented Concentration camps, the British used them during the Boer War. I don’t see why it is a problem for you that the Soviets used them before the Nazis used them. —Nug (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As I already responded, sources on the Holocaust do not mention Soviet gas vans simply because Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust. That means nothing. If however, any of them explicitly tells there was NO Soviet gas vans, that of course could/should be cited, but I did not see such sources so far. On other hand, there are multiple RS all telling that Soviet gas vans did exist. Hence this should be regarded as either a "strong majority view" or simply a matter of fact. Obviously, that was not patented as an invention. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The argument about WP:BRD is irrelevant because Assayer himself created a new and completely different version of the text, which I consider as a slight improvement over the old version (old version included obvious WP:OR). Nevertheless, as I said, new version by Assayer is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Therefore, yes, I strongly agree with your restoration of "my" version which is WP:NPOV compliant. This is still a "wrong version" of course, and anyone is welcome to improve it further. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nug: I don’t think anyone is claiming who invented gas vans first, – well, My very best Wishes did, reinforcing his claim by arguing this is a conjecture explicitly made in the book by Albats, by Solzenitsyn, and others Your hint nobody is saying the Nazis invented Concentration camps, the British used them during the Boer War is a good hint, because this is a claim already made by Hitler himself saying: “Concentration camps were not invented in Germany”, but copied from the English and it has been reiterated by Nazi propaganda. Nikolaus Wachsmann notes that such attempts to relativize the SS camps had little success, before he discusses the “grain of truth in the crude Nazi propaganda”. He discusses further foreign relatives of the SS camps including the Gulag, characterizing the claim that the Nazis seized the idea for concentration camps from the Soviets as “misleading”. (KL, 2015, pp. 6-8) That also encapsulates my concern with the notion that the Soviets used them before the Nazis used them. It is misleading and I might point out that you provided sources[30] which do not support that claim (Merridale, Colton).

@My very best wishes: Soviet gas vans were not a part of the Holocaust. That means nothing. That means a lot, particularly since you insist on opinionated sources like Albats. It seems as if you consider the findings of the extensive literature on the use of gas vans to be meaningless, although they contradict claims that you insist on. Why should any historian explicitly tells there was NO Soviet gas vans when they have never heard of Soviet gas vans, let alone examined the evidence? There is a bunch of prominent reliable sources stating that Gas vans were devised, even “invented” by the KTI in Nazi Germany. Shall we now have a lead stating that the gas vans were first built by Nazi Germany in 1939/40 and first used by the Soviet secret police in 1936? When reputable sources contradict one another, WP:NPOV advises: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In the body and scope of the literature on gas vans the sources discussing "Soviet gas vans" are few and the information is meagre, even marginal. Thus treating them as of equal validity creates a false balance Even the historiography of the Great Purge in the Soviet Union passes over the story of the gas van completely or relegates it to one or two sentences (Colton; Merridale). Quite many of your sources are newspaper articles and thus not the best sources. That is the opposite of a "strong majority view".--Assayer (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is very simple. If RS A,B,C,D tell something about subject X (Soviet gas vans, whatever), we can cite what they say about subject X. If they do not say anything about subject X, we do not cite them. In your version you selectively and arbitrary excluded what a number of RS do tell about this subject. There is nothing "marginal" in academic books and books by a Nobel prize winner. This is an obvious WP:NPOV violation. Speaking about your policy link, this is the case when all multiple RS which tells something on subject X do NOT really contradict each other. Yes, sure, "...proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Key words: "on the subject" (of Soviet gas vans).My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with MVBW’s policy based arguments. The title of the topic is “Gas vans”, so there isn’t any inherent restriction that the article can only focus on German gas vans. Here is a scholarly source that mentions Soviet gas here. —Nug (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is yet another scholarly source telling the same. This is interesting because it tells about use of Soviet gas vans in connection to the Polish Operation of the NKVD in 1937-1938 and makes a reference to another books with relation to Soviet gas vans, T. Kizny, Wielki terror 1937–1938, p. 177, 238. [31]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You are both dodging my question. The article is certainly not restricted to Soviet gas vans. Thus we have to take into account the whole body of sources and what they say about the history of gas vans to figure out, what "in proportion" means for the artice. There is no need to repeat my assessment of the scholarly literature here. If a book has been poorly reviewed and the reception has been overwhelmingly negative, though, it does not matter whether it is somehow "academic" or written by a Nobel prize winner. Its acceptance is still marginal. Mvbw insists that we can cite any RS and what they say about the subject. Now a large body of scholarly literature states, that gas vans were first built by Nazi Germany in 1939/40, whereas you made Wikipedia claim, that "the gas vans were first used by the Soviet secret police in 1936." How would you like to balance these contradictory claims? I personally would not delve into the question who built the first gas vans and thus omitted this aspect in the lead, but you both do. --Assayer (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• There are no contradictory claims. Some RS tell gas vans were used by Nazi Germany since 1939. Others tell they were also used in the Soviet Union since 1936. There is no any contradiction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no contradiction either, it is often the case that certain technologies can be independently invented in different countries. —Nug (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but "gas vans were first used by the Soviet secret police", "The first usage of gas vans was described in the Soviet Union in 1930s", and "yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention" [emphasis added] are but three claims which contradict information provided by numerous RS on gas vans (see above) and were introduced into the article and staunchly defended by no one other than you.--Assayer (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC) I do not know of a RS which claims that gas vans were "independently invented" in the SU and Nazi Germany, nor does Wikipedia make that claim. After all that would appear to be a case of WP:SYNTH anyway.--Assayer (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need a reliable source to tell us the year 1936 came before the year 1939? I thought that was self evident. —Nug (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the RS on gas vans say that gas vans were first used in 1939. So you argue these RS are mistaken?--Assayer (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Which sources tell that gas vans were never used in other countries prior to using them by Nazi in 1939? Can you please directly quote here what they say? My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what this is about. I am not making a negative claim, whereas yours is an argument from ignorance, which illegitimately shifts the burden of proof. --Assayer (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• The burden is yours. You say there are RS whose claims explicitly contradict claims by sources currently cited in the section about Soviet gas vans. Which sources are you talking about, and what exactly did they say? My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Assayer, I first flew an aeroplane in 2010, that does not mean I was the first person to fly an aeroplane in history. The sources say the Nazis first used gas vans in 1939, that does not mean they were the first in history, just that they started using them in 1939. —Nug (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that the Nazis were the first (in history) who used gas vans in 1939, e.g., that the gas van is a product of the Third Reich, whose origin is traced back to 1939. (Patrick Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust, 2012, p. 199). I have already demonstrated the verifiability of this positive claim back in June 2018.[32] For the contradictions see[33] --Assayer (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, there are several direct citations in your first diff, however they simply tell about first cases of gas vans usage in Nazi Germany. No one disputes it. But they do not say anything which explicitly contradicts claims by other sources in the Soviet Union section, including the citation from the book by Albats. Moreover, your first citation tells: We do not know the inventor [in Germany!]. The only alleged inventor noted in RS seems to be the NKVD officer Berg. Of course if there are any other alleged inventors (for example, in Germany), they must be include it in the page, unless they are included already. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How come that "a product of the Third Reich", devised (and thereby "invented" most ikely by the KTI) in 1939, was first used in the Soviet Union in 1936? Please explain. Moreover, as Michael Alberti writes, referring to two gassings of about 50 people each: Most likely the Nazis committed in October in Fort VII the first mass murder by poison gas in the history of mankind. ("Sehr wahrscheinlich verübten die Nationalsozialisten im Oktober 1939 im Fort VII den ersten mit Giftgas ausgeführten Massenmord in der Geschichte der Menschheit." Die Verfolgung und Vernichtung der Juden im Reichsgau Wartheland 1939-1945, 2006, p. 327) That does not sit well with Albats' claims, does it?--Assayer (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. According to direct quotation in your diff, "The gas van is a peculiar product of the Third Reich...". Yes, it certainly is. No one used these trucks before on a such large scale. It also tells: "For this purpose [killing patients in numerous Wartheland hospitals in 1940], a kind of mobile gas chamber had been invented. We do not know the inventor, but the KTI was probably involved." That rises more questions than answers. Who was the actual inventor? Arthur Nebe? Sources do not say it. Or maybe that was Berg? Nothing here really contradicts other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Contradicts or not, but this is really simple. Albats and Solzhenitsyn claimed something. OK, we cite their claims. Another RS tells something (e.g. "The gas van is a peculiar product of the Third Reich..." and "For this purpose [killing patients in numerous Wartheland hospitals in 1940], a kind of mobile gas chamber had been invented. We do not know the inventor, but the KTI was probably involved."). OK, we cite them too. This is WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Most likely the Nazis committed in October in Fort VII the first mass murder by poison gas in the history of mankind. It tells "most likely" and the statement is obviously incorrect: the poison gas was widely used during WWI, it was also used against civilian population by Red Army during the Tambov Rebellion, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've read the arguments in this discussion and I find Assayer's reasoning to be compelling. I see the issues of WP:FALSEBALANCE. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that? If you want to improve something, please take part in discussion and fix current version, instead of just making blind reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• MVBW, please don't accuse editors of "drive by reverts", as you did here: [34]. This was not a drive-by revert, as I've followed the discussion and commented on it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Simply saying "False balance" is not an adequate explanation. The problem with version you reverted to is an obvious WP:NPOV violation, as described above. This is pretty straightforward: Assauer just excluded at will several well sourced claims by academic books, by a Nobel prize winner and other RS in this section. If this version persists, I will start an additional thread about it and then either post an RfC or ask for an additional input at WP:NPOVNB. My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• well sourced is highly debatable as explained at length above. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@KEC, please stop your edit warring while there is ongoing discussion on the talk page, it is disruptive to building concensus. —Nug (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You are mis-applying WP:FALSEBALANCE, these are not contradictory viewpoints of the same events, but separate events placed in chronological order, and certainly the section on Nazi gas vans is longer in any case. —Nug (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. (a) Removing a lot of sourced text from Soviet Union section by Assayer, together with sources, has nothing to do with restoring the "balance". Quite the opposite. (b) These separate events should simply go in chronological order. (c) Both sections must appear in the lead per WP:MOS. Otherwise, the version by Assayer is clearly out of balance. (d) One could significantly expand the section about Nazi Germany, this should be easy for Assayer who seems to be more familiar with Germany subjects. But instead of expanding Germany section, he removes claims and strong sources he does not like from Soviet section. This is not the way to improve pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is absolutely no justification for removing reliably sourced text, along with references, and changing the chronology. This article is not called Nazi gas vans. Assayer and KEC should just drop the stick and move on rather than continue to waste everybody’s time here. —Nug (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

1. For clarification: When Alberti wrote about the “first mass murder by poison gas in the history of mankind”, he clearly referred to gas chambers, not chemical weapons.
2. As has been frequently documented on this talk page, the claim The gas vans were first used by the Soviet secret police in 1936, is not supported by the sources given. Neither Merridale nor Colton mention a year, neither Merridale nor Colton claim that the Soviets used gas vans first. The article in Kommersant was written by Evgeny Zhirnov who also wrote the article in Komsomolskaya pravda back in 1990. He neither claims that gas vans were first used by the Soviets, nor that this started in 1936. He wrongfully says that Berg was arrested in 1937, but that’s about it. The claim that the Soviets were the first to come up with gas vans is made by Albats and Solzhenitsyn, both of which are cited in the article, but not for these claims. I argued why Albats and Solzhenitsyn should not be used for this article and I find it disturbing how RS have repeatedly been misrepresented to maintain certain contentious claims.
3. That said, I may emphasize, that I did not simply “remove” sourced text from Soviet Union section, but rewrote it to fix the problems with sources. [35] But instead of expanding Germany section, he removes claims and strong sources he does not like from Soviet section. That's not how I proceeded editing. I did significantly expand the section on Germany, see [36]. I'll suggest that My very best wishes withdraw their misleading comment.
4. This is about undue weight and false balance, and I think the discussion has come full circle, so that I turned to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Gas van.
5. I do think, however, that Nug have a point when they observe these are not contradictory viewpoints of the same events, but separate events. Nevertheless, the current version integrates both "events" into one narrative precisely by placing them in a chronological order thereby suggesting connection, influence and development. This is based on some casual remarks by Albats and Solzenitsyn's infamous, antisemitically tainted argument in 200 Years Together. Since we all agree that the use of gas vans in Nazi Germany was unprecedent and thus way more significant, which is also reflected in a far larger body of scholarship, it is not feasible, in fact misleading, to point to Soviet gas vans in the lead. Instead of assuming some ill-conceived chronology, both cases should be treated in relation to their historical significance.--Assayer (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• You posted a question on NPOVNB. This is not an RfC, but something similar. I assume that certain rules, commonly used for the RfC will be applicable here. Here they are: we should keep current version of the page in the part where the disagreement had happen (existing at the moment of submitting the post) and wait for comments by other contributors for a couple of weeks (the time frame of RfC is actually longer). Then, depending on the comments by others, something can be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And no, everything currently in the Soviet Union section is supported by RS. Perhaps some of the claims need to be expanded or rephrased, but this is a different matter, and I am open for any specific suggestions what to do without simply eliminating all sources you do not like. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusions from NPOVNB discussion

Based on the current state of discussion, here is my summary:

1. There was little input from uninvolved contributors. One of them said "It's hard to tell what the exact issues are here". Indeed, the suggested alternative version of the section about Soviet Union [37] tells essentially the same as current version. The current version just provides more details and uses a lot more RS.
2. There is a consensus that section about Nazi Germany should be improved and expanded to clarify the differences and similarities between Soviet and Nazi gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

An eyewitness account

More source digging. This article (Александр ЛИПКОВ, "Я к вам травою прорасту…", Роман свидетельств, Опубликовано в журнале Континент, номер 123, 2005). This is Kontinent, interview with Lidia Golovkova (she was mentioned above on this page). She tells: " бывший комендант московского управления [of NKVD] ...рассказал следующее: через лес шли машины, груженные людьми, до 50 человек набивали в кузов. Эти машины москвичи давно уже называли «душегубками»....Поворачивалась выхлопная труба внутрь фургона, и люди приезжали такие уже полусознательные. Автобусы с полуживыми людьми подъезжали со стороны леса..." and so on. Google translation (fixed): "“the former commandant of the Moscow administration [of NKVD] ... told the following: up to 50 people were loaded into trucks moving through the forest. Muscovites have long called these cars “soul killers”.... The exhaust pipe was directed into the van, and the people were half-conscious already when the truck arrived [to the firing range]. The trucks with half-dead people moved from the side of the forest ... " I do not mind this be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

From the same source (Golovkova abour Berg): "В 1953 году его семья подала на реабилитацию. Дело пересматривалось, и только потому возникли разговоры о душегубках. Были вызваны в качестве свидетелей несколько исполнителей, которые тогда все были живы. Двое из них на допросах сказали, что душегубки были, а двое это категорически отрицали. Был сделан вывод, что это не доказано, но все-таки его не реабилитировали.". Also can be included, but perhaps these are excessive details for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on this, Glovkova is "a principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books". She is an expert, qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Assayer. So, here you suggested to include claims by Golovkova. I completely agree. However, we could not use her post on website martyr.ru, which would be a self-published and possibly a primary source. Instead, I found a secondary RS, an article by someone else in the Kontinent that cites Golovkova. That can and apparently must be included per WP:NPOV. Now, you mentioned another source, ‘’V Rodnom Kraju’’. In: Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938., Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 9-180, here 72-85. I do not have it. If you can cite what it tells exactly, we can certainly use it too. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good, that you reread the previous discussions. I did not suggest to include claims by Golovka, however, because it is mainly an edition of the investigative file on Berg and thus a primary source. More recent secondary sources rather use this edition than Komsomolskaya Pravda. So you now took notice, that the investigation of 1956 remained inconclusive concerning the existence of gas vans, because there was conflicting testimony.--Assayer (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought you did suggest it, or at least regarded Golovkova as a reliable expert on this subject. However, the publication in Kontinent by Aleksander Lipkov is a reliable secondary RS. Yes, it does mentioned the investigative file on Berg, which would be a primary source by itself. Therefore, I am going to cite the article by Lipkov, not the investigative file. Needless to say, the eyewitness account (as cited above) and the investigative file are two different issues, as described in the article. The eyewitness account does not come from the investigative report or the publication in Komsomolskaya Pravda. This is an independent corroboration documented by Golovkova. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you know that the "eyewitness report" is not testimony from the investigation? The publication by Lipkov that you refer to, is actually a transcript of interviews conducted for a documentary. Since for obvious reasons Golovkova herself is not the eyewitness, an interview with her is not as reliable as her publication. In the interview Golovkova is anything but specific about the origins of that "report". The information given remind me, however, of testimony given during the investigation of 1956.--Assayer (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Golovkova is not an eyewitness, but a researcher who interviewed an eyewitness, and her findings have been reliably reported in a secondary RS. There is no any problem here. How do I know this is not testimony from the investigation? Because the sources tells so: Михаил Кириллин: Подробности всего, что здесь происходило, мы восстановили по беседе с одним человеком. Других оставшихся в живых, кто непосредственно работал бы в зоне, не осталось. И его уже теперь нет. Это бывший комендант московского управления, который рассказал все подробности… Лидия Головкова: Он рассказал следующее:...". So, it appears that the interview was conducted independently by the former FSB officer Mikhail Kirillin (Кириллин Михаил Евгеньевич, полковник запаса ФСБ, в конце 80-х — начале 90-х гг. сотрудник Группы по реабилитации) and Golovkova, so this is even more reliable. And no, if you read the source, Mikhail Kirillin is very specific and provides brief biography of this eyewitness. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are interviewed, the interview itself is not a secondary source, but still an interview. If you interview two people together, that does not double the reliability of the information. If Kirillin provides a brief biography of the eyewitness, what's the eyewitness's name? When was he born? Is he already dead? When was the interview conducted? Am I mistaken, that Golovkova speaks of vans with exhaust pipe turned inside the van, in which people were not gassed to death but arrived at Butovo half-dead?--Assayer (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

According, to the claim, the people were gassed, but some of them still remain alive (unconscious) after the trip. That depends on the amount of the carbon monoxide (that was not Zyklon B!) and ventilation, see Carbon monoxide poisoning. The interview itself (a record or transcript of an interview) is a primary source, but the article in Kontinent by Lipkov (used on the page) is a secondary source. But here is something else in this source (translation):

"According to a testimony by a driver of such truck, this [gassing] was necessary to exclude the possibility of a riot in the car. Naturally, the people who swallowed the carbon monoxide have been suppressed, and many of them already accepted the death as a deliverance from the torture. (said Alexander Mikhailov, Major-General of the FSB Reserve)

But wait a minute, is it this Alexander Mikhailov, Major-General of the FSB Reserve: [38],[39],[40]? Yes, he is. This is yet another important info/testimony to be included to the page. As about the first witness (he was not a driver, but a "commandant" of Moscow department [of NKVD]), Kirillin tells: "Тот человек, от которого мы узнали многие подробности, комендант московского управления, тоже ведь с уникальной, в общем-то, судьбой. Он сам должен был оказаться в числе расстрелянных. В конце 1938 года его арестовали, возбудили уголовное дело. Но ему, если можно так сказать, повезло: в это время уже надо было проводить массовые операции в Прибалтике, и его как специалиста отпустили из тюрьмы, послали в Прибалтику, и там он занимался массовой депортацией людей. А потом благополучно пережил 1953 год, тогда был уволен из органов, и дожил вплоть до настоящего времени.". My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

According to which claim? Лидия Головкова: Поворачивалась выхлопная труба внутрь фургона, и люди приезжали такие уже полусознательные. Автобусы с полуживыми людьми подъезжали со стороны леса. Там была устроена вышка с прожектором над деревьями, территория была окружена колючей проволокой, и стоял длиннейший деревянный барак, куда всех заводили якобы для санобработк. That claim indicates, that exhaust fumes were used to somehow sedate the victims before they were shot. That notion is supported by the statement of the driver, that "the gassing was necessary to exclude the possibility of a riot in the car". In other words, this evidence contradicts the claims that the van was designed as a gas (death) chamber to kill people. Furthermore, do you understand that "the article in Kontinent by Lipkov" in fact mainly consists of transcripts of interviews conducted for a documentary film from 2005? Which would make it a primary source according to your own reasoning. The subtitle of the "article" is Роман свидетельств. Is the translation "novel of evidence" correct? Doesn't the word "novel" raise any doubts about its reliability? Finally, what was that eyewitnesses name (former Commandant of NKVD) again?--Assayer (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The article in Kontinent is clearly a secondary RS, and it tells what it tells, as directly cited above. No, no one tells in source that the gas vans were used to sedate people. Saying that would be an WP:OR. One needs to quote these sources directly since there is a disagreement what exactly they say. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you deny that "the article in Kontinent" consist mainly of transcripts of interviews conducted for a documentary film from 2005? Yes, using eyewitness accounts leads to WP:OR. Therefore I would not use such accounts unless these accounts were carefully analyzed by secondary literature. Then it might be possible to use such accounts for illustrative purposes. "The article in Kontinent" clearly does neither analyze nor contextualize these accounts, because it consists not only of transcripts of interviews, but arranges these interviews in a certain way, too. If there is a disagreement what exactly they say, that might be, because these sources are contradictory and thus unreliable by Wikipedia standards. That the eyewitness remains anonymous and that we basically do not know anything about the circumstances of the interview, does not enhance reliabilty, either. Maybe you should take that issue to WP:RSN.--Assayer (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if you consider this publication "primary" (no, it is not), we should simply follow the policy which tells: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source ... For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. In other words, we can make direct citations from a primary source. That's fine. Let's do it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You consider an "eyewitness account" related through an interview with the interviewer [!] who won't even reveal the name of the eyewitness, let alone the circumstances of the interview, a primary source with which to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge? Seriously? I don't. "Let's do it, because we can do it", is not the policy.--Assayer (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this is a typical secondary source, an article by Lipkov. He simply makes a lot of direct citations from various interviews and discussions, he cites Ivan Bunin, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It also say (according to Golobkova): In 1953, the family of Berg filed for rehabilitation. Then his case was reviewed, and the gas van story came to light. Several executioners, who were then all alive, were called and interviewed. Two of them admitted that gas vans were used, but two others denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary conclusions from RSNB discussion

Based on the current state of discussion [41], I would say that

1. The discussion went astray to debating other sources and the subject in general. However, there were helpful comments from uninvolved contributors, including one admin [42].
2. There is a consensus that the source can be used on the page with explicit attribution to Golovkova. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Gas Van" use within the USSR

I've read good portions of the Lipkov interviews [43] (in translation), and text from Merridale's "Night of Stone" [44] and Colton's "Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis" [45]. Based on these sources, it does seem that something like "gas vans," qualitatively and quantitatively different from those used by the Nazis, were used by the NKVD during the Great Purges. Specifically, it seems that NKVD officer Isai D. Berg testified, when he was arrested in 1937, to having used these rigged vans to execute prisoners in Moscow (Merridale and Colton). In interviews, a number of people recount that according to one eyewitness, trucks rigged in a similar fashion would bring as many as 50 people at a time to an execution site outside Moscow. This typically did not kill them, but most were shot to death at the site not long after (Lipkov).

My impression is that this is an important detail in a larger and horrific story of the purges. While it can receive some mention in this article, that mention should be brief in comparison with the attention given to Nazi use, given the larger industrial killing by gas vans under Nazi rule. I'm unsure how to evaluate the accuracy of the Hałaburda article [46] (citing T. Kizny, Wielki terror 1937–1938, p. 177, 238), and the Albats and Fitzpatrick book [47] (based on a citation to Komsomolskaya pravda, October 28, 1990), since one cites a Polish book and the other a Russian article written 29 years ago.

Altogether Gellately's summary [48] seems accurate: "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." @My very best wishes, Assayer, K.e.coffman, Nug, and Nick-D:. -Darouet (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, look at the talk page discussion of that story. Almost all sources cited by you (including, Merridale, Colton and Albatz) are based exclusively on the single Komsomolskaya provda article that tells about a discovery of the Berg interrogation protocol. Meanwhile, your edit created an absolutley false impression that they tell different stories. Again, that was a single story, which was reproduced by several secondary sources. With regard to Halaburda, he just briefly mentions a story described in T. Kizny, Wielki terror 1937–1938, p. 177, 238. I have no access to that Polish source, but it would be good to cite Kizny, not Halaburda. In addition, it makes sense to check if Kizny is not reproducing the same KP article.

The reason why I am objecting to your edits is quite simple: by citing many sources, each of which just reproduces a single tabloid story, we create a sensationalistic content that undermines credibility of Wikipedia. I don't mind to include all these sources, but we need to explain that all of them are based on a single story, which is based on a single document.

In addition, the memoirs collected in the Lipkov's book allow us to conclude that (i) Berg's interrogation protocol in not more trustworthy than other protocols of that time, so it should not be trusted.

(ii) Looks like Berg's "invention" was not a gas van at all: it's goal was to make the victims semi-conscious, to suppress their ability to resist. Two arguments support this version. First, one testimoty directly tells about that, second, another testimony says that all victims were subjected to a procedure of identification before execution (in Butovo), and sometimes, very rarely, they were released. That would be impossible, had the gas van been the killing machine. All of that does not mean that was less brutal, maybe, it was even more brutal. However, all of that is just a story about a single event, and it is based on very shaky evidences.

As I already say, that undermines a credibility of Wikipedia in general, so I suggest to return to the version where the root of this story (a discovery of the interrogation protocol in 1990) is explained.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Darouet. I mostly agree and think your edits were reasonable. Perhaps only lead needs to be a little rephrased. Also, a few details are missing, but they can be easily included. @Paul. No, there is no reason to conclude that the cited sources were based only on the publication in Komsomolskaya pravda. This can not be said even about the book by Solzhenitsyn (here is your direct quotation, and it tells "journalists", i.e. plural). This is your WP:OR, sorry.My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve of Darouet's edits as a positive step forward, he clearly isn't pushing any agenda and his edits are neutral with appropriate attribution. The sources were deemed to be okay at RSN. I also agree with Darouet that the Nazi van section should be expanded given the larger scale use, Assayer said he was going to do that. --Nug (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you prefer to ignore the results of RSN/NPOVN discussions. With regard to alleged "agenda" in Darouet's edits, isn't it a Freudian slip? Who speaks about any "agenda" here? Except you, it seems nobody even mentions the word "agenda". This user has joined this discussion just recently, and they seem sincerely not understand that the "independent" sources are actually telling the same story. If you really want Wikipedia to be not just a generator of various conspiracy theories, but a trustworthy informational resource, it makes sense to try to think logically: if different authors are telling different aspects of the same story (or they are telling about different stories), then it is possible to identify their sources of information. If under "journalists" Solzhenitsyn means "several journalists", then it is possible to find articles other than the KP article. In reality, even if one newspaper article appears that describes some event X, it is normal to say in Russian: "newspaperS write ....". Therefore, unless you are pushing specific agenda (I assume you are not), it makes sense to discuss how can we avoid sensationalism and creation of a misleading impressions of existence of a large number of independent sources writing about this single event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "story" (i.e. use of the gas vans on the way to the Butovo firing range supervised by Berg) is probably the same. But the RS are multiple and they tell about slightly different aspects of the story. And BTW, here is yet another book saying that Soviet and Nazi gas vans were the same. Why "journalists" (plural)? I do not know, but there was yet another publication (ВОПРОС — ОТВЕТ // Аргументы и Факты № 17 28/04/1993, cited on ruwiki link, page ru:Берг, Исай Давидович). My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone then agrees that a number of sources are referencing a Komsomolskaya pravda article, and that the Lipkov piece is not based on that article, but on interviews with three people?

But, you may disagree about the veracity of the Komsomolskaya pravda article? And Paul you would argue that the prisoner executions described in that article are referring to the same historical events as the prisoner transports in the Lipkov piece?

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand what people are arguing.

Do we have access to the text of the Komsomolskaya pravda article? Or do we have a detailed reference, so that I can get it from a library?

I won't have time to look into this right away, but with a reference I can put in a library request. -Darouet (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Darouet: you are asking absolutely correct questions. The answers are as follows. First, it seems even Solzhenitsyn didn't know anything about Soviet gas vans before the KP publication. Second, an overwhelming majority of sources (Albatz, Merridale, Solzhenitsyn, etc) cite the KP article directly, and it seems each of them either tell different aspects of the same story described in the 1990 article, or they make some generalizations (which are not based on any sources). Third, there are few other sources that do not cite the KP article, but they are either authored by the same author (Zhirnov), or they do not disclose their sources, so it is reasonable to conclude they also are based on the KP article (I think the Polish book uses it too). Fourth, it seems Lipkov's book is the most comprehensive collection of primary sources about that story, and some of them (probably, just Berg's dossier) was available to the KP article's author. We can draw several interesting conclusions from Lipkov's book, but the problem is that we cannot do that, because that would be original research (Lipkov is not a secondary source, but a collection of primary sources).

Therefore, the only correct way to present all information should be: in 1990, one Soviet tabloid published an article about the usage of gas van during the Great Purge. This article was cited by X, Y, Z. According to these authors (here a full Berg's story should be explained). That would be a non-sensationalist and neutral way to present the story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(a) No, actually NONE of these sources quotes the article in Komsomolskaya pravda directly ("..."). Three of them make a reference to this article, but we do not know what other sources or general knowledge of the subject these authors could use. We are not in the business of deciding why authors came to their conclusions, we just tell what RS tell. (b) The article by Lipkov is a non-fiction documentary organized as a collage of interviews. This is very similar in style to the literary work by Svetalna Aleksievich. Such work does qualify as secondary. Otherwise, she would not receive the Nobel Prize for it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever has been published in Komsomolskaya pravda is irrelevant if we do not use it for sourcing on this page. I think we should not use it here, and I do not think anyone has access to it. We have lot of other significantly more reliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Can either of you get me a reference for the Komsomolskaya pravda article? I've seen Wikipedians track down sources through historical literature plenty of times, and I'd just like to know what's in that article. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It was cited as "Е. Жирнов. «Процедура казни носила омерзительный характер» // Комсомольская правда, 1990, 28 октября, c.2" in the book by Solzhenitsyn. The text is not available anywhere online. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: I myself was trying to find this article in KP archives, but I couldn't. A more recent article by the same author was published in Kommersant, and it seems it tells pretty much the same.

I doubt it could contain any other significant information, because Lipkov's collection of primary sources looks comprehensive, and Zhirnov was dealing with just a subset of those sources: thus, Lipkov's collection contains some details that are not mentioned by Zhirnov, Albatz, Solzhenitsyn, Merridale, etc., which means they were discovered after the KP publication. In contrast, none of these authors mentions any fact or a detail that is not found in Lipkov's collection. This collection is a really valuable source of materials, the only problem is that all of them are just testimonies, and Lipkov is not a historian, and he even is not pretending to be a historian, so he provides no his own analysis of those facts.

From the Kommersant article, I conclude the only document his KP article was based upon was the Berg's dossier:

"В 1990 году мне показали следственное дело арестованного в 1937 году начальника административно-хозяйственного отдела УНКВД Московской области Исая Берга, в котором говорилось:

"Берг тогда являлся начальником оперативной группы по приведению в исполнение решений тройки УНКВД МО. С его участием были созданы автомашины, так называемые душегубки. В этих автомашинах перевозили арестованных, приговоренных к расстрелу, и по пути следования к месту исполнения приговоров они отравлялись газом. Берг признавал, что он организовывал приведение в исполнение приговоров с применением автомашины (душегубки), объясняя это тем, что он выполнял указание руководства УНКВД МО и что без них невозможно было бы исполнить столь большое количество расстрелов, к которым арестованных приговаривали три тройки одновременно. Из рассказов на допросах Берга и из разговоров, которые ходили среди сотрудников УНКВД МО, было известно, что процедура приведения приговоров, организованная Бергом, носила омерзительный характер: приговоренных к расстрелу арестованных раздевали догола, связывали, затыкали рот и бросали в машину. Имущество арестованных под руководством Берга расхищалось".

Google translates it as:

"In 1990, they showed me an investigation file of Isay Berg, the head of the administrative and economic department of the NKVD of the Moscow region, arrested in 1937, which said:...."

Taking into account that the KP article was written in 1990, it is reasonable to conclude that in his Kommersant article Zhirnov tells about the very same file.

That does not contradict to what Solzhenitsyn says. Other authors just mention that story briefly, or they try to make some generalizations. They never mention any primary sources, so it is correct to conclude the only source all this literature is based upon is the Zhirnov's article published in KP in 1990.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• In other words, Paul did not find the actual source/article, but believes (why?) that it tells the same as a newer publication by the same author on a similar subject. This is WP:OR, but again, we simply do not need this article in Komsomolskaya pravda for anything. My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet:, there is an independent scholarly source that mentions Soviet gas vans here. --Nug (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Alas, you seem not to have read the above talk page discussion. This source has been already discussed, and it is not an independent source. It sites Kizny's book Wielki terror ("The Great terror"), and I have a feeling that Kizny cites the same KP article. It would be interesting to see this book. Maybe, your Polish friends can help us with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There is more. One can follow links here to find other sources on this subject (the post itself is hardly an RS, but it provides photo of the infamous Berg). My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That one can probably be used as a source. Author published a few books on Russian history.My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be able to get access to the Komsomolskaya pravda article. -Darouet (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see Paul that you're quoting from it directly above, my apologies. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What he cites is not article from Komsomolskaya Pravda. Let's just forget about the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda if no one has access to it. I found 3 new RS on the subject, one - link just above, and see two threads below.My very best wishes (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I think it remains to be established how many independent, original sources describe the use of gas vans for killing or for transport during the purges. As far as I can tell you're arguing that they were used in one reported case they we know of, and than there are differing descriptions of this case (Berg saying during interrogation that he killed people in these vans, while others state the same vans were for transport). However, I don't think it's established that these two different descriptions are of the same thing, and with MVBW finding other sources, perhaps there in fact will be two, three, or more cases independent cases described by sources.

@My very best wishes: on the other hand I don't know if you're taking Paul's concern at all seriously — that is, to be careful to understand what original accounts and activities various secondary sources are referring to, in order to avoid falsely multiplying what could be individual cases into several, because there might be several descriptions of the same case. Your edits are also giving WP:UNDUE weight to the apparently sporadic use of these vans by the NKVD compared to the their systematic use for extermination by the Nazis.

I am busy "in real life" for a bit but I'd recommend we make a table listing secondary sources, and the primary sources they refer to (if they refer to a primary source at all). Does that sound reasonable to you both? -Darouet (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: that is a good point. I've summarised all sources in the RSN section that you created. Please, comment there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Daroquet.

1. Weight issues and "sporadic" versus "systematic". This should be established by sources. According to cited sources, Soviet gas vans were used in least 3 cities, and the overall scale of their usage in the USSR is unknown/"needs further investigation" (per Robert Gellately). As about the usage by Nazi we need to include some numbers, specifically about gas vans (Nazi mostly used stationary gas chambers). We also need to significantly expand the section about Nazi Germany, but this is a subject I am not familiar with.
2. As about primary sources used by secondary sources, I think this is waste of time. The reason: the secondary sources typically do not cite all their sources. Some of them do not cite anything at all. Even if a secondary source cited a primary source X ([...]), that does not mean X is the only source. And even if it cited something like "..." from X and tells nothing, we should still cite the secondary, rather than the primary source per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: my impression from the WP:RSN discussion [49] is that editors were worried about making sure we get this issue right. Using the highest quality sources, understanding those sources well, and also emphasizing authoritative english-language sources (when possible) will help us in that regard. The recent Haaretz article exposé [50] has made me uncomfortable with merely accepting various presented sources as true, when they might in fact be considered dubious by most historians. That was one of the issues raised at the RSN discussion by The Four Deuces in these comments [51][52]. Darouet (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, and that is exactly what I am talking about: let's use secondary RS per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Such sources are currently used on this page. On the other hand, if one follows the comments by TFD, what are the sources he is using? The first of them is a photocopy from an old German newspaper [53]. Well, if anyone knows German and wants to take responsibility for using this source, I do not mind. 2nd source by TFD [54] is a blog post, which was posted by an anonymous user with Russian name [55]. That one must be completely ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

According to cited sources, Soviet gas vans were used in least 3 cities, and the overall scale of their usage in the USSR is unknown/"needs further investigation" (per Robert Gellately) That's a case of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources being cited speaks of "at least 3 cities". Some historians acknowledge one case in Moscow, and you have found memoirs which mention Omsk and Ivanovo, but there is no source which connects the Moscow case with the cases mentioned in the memoirs. --Assayer (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, this is not included on the page. Secondly, yes, there is. It is this source. It brings all these cases together. It also brings 1 more source (Тарас Валянцін. На высьпе ўспамінаў — Вільня: Інстытут беларусістыкі, 2007. — (Кнігарня “Наша Ніва”). — Другое выданьне. – с.254). However, even if it would not, making simple action 1+1+1=3 is not WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You saying "1+1+1=3" is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Do you suggest that this newspaper (?) article, published in an obscure Crimean newspaper (?) should be the main source for Wikipedia? Do you maintain, as Sokolov does, that the Soviet Union operated the first "death camps"? And do you really consider vague recollections presented in memoirs to be reliable sources? Since these assertions are not supported by mainstream historical scholarship, do you think that these information are somehow suppressed?--Assayer (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only say these sources qualify as RS per WP:RS. No, the books by Albats, Gellately, Petrov and some others do belong to mainstream scholarship. Others are good journalistic sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking into account numerous cases of rejection of previously achieved consensus, and keeping in mind that this discussion has made several rounds, I suggest to stop it and summarize it as follows:

• Taking into account that several secondary sources describe usage of gas vans during the Great Purge, this material should be included in the article;

Agree. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the scale of gas van usage is unknown, and most likely it was sporadic, and the very fact of their usage has not been meticulously studied, the Soviet gas vans should be discussed in a "Controversy" section;

Disagree. There is no any controversy (contradiction of sources) about Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is necessary to explain the origin of that information, so the KP article that gave a start to the whole story must be mentioned, and all sources that are based on that article must be described as such;

No, we do not second guess sources and do not do WP:OR.My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The story of "non-lethal" gas vans should be removed from this article, because they have no relation to this topic.

There was no such thing as "non-lethal" gas vans. A few people could survive it, depending on the time to CO exposure. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Articles in obscure local newspaper should not be included: we do not use articles from local school newspaper in the articles about uncertainty principle, but we can use the same newspaper as a source in the article about that school. Only high quality sources are allowed to support outstanding claims (KP, Albatz, Solzhenitsyn, Merridale are good)

No, we follow WP:RS. That's the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Polish source must be checked: if it cites the same KP article, or Albatz, Merridale et al, it is redundant, and it should be removed;

It was checked already, and it cited another sources. If something was indeed redundant, this can be removed, but I do not see what exactly. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• A discussion of the Soviet gas van in a context of the Holocaust denial also should be included in the "Controversy" section.

What section? There is no any controversy (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Any mention of Soviet gas vans should be removed from the leade as non-essential.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, we follow WP:MOS. This is our guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Paul. Original research and fringe content based on eyewitness primary accounts should be removed.Batbash (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose anything like a „Controversy” section. There is no such thing like a “controversy”. Mainstream historical scholarship mentions so called “Soviet gas vans” at best only in passing. There is no scholarly discussion and thus no controversy, just some scattered sources that have been compiled by Wikipedians to suggest greater importance than is warranted. Therefore, I do not deem it necessary to reconstruct the origin of this information unless this has been discussed by RS. Except for an entry on Holocaust controversies it has not been discussed. This does not mean that the same story needs to be reproduced over and over again. Colton’s book has received the most attention. That should do. The context of Holocaust denial does not seem of utmost importance to me. I strongly oppose any links to texts by Holocaust deniers. The discussion about Holocaust controversies as a RS is under way. “Soviet gas vans” need not to be mentioned in the lead as they do not add to a concise summary of the article.--Assayer (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed there is very little information about Soviet gas vans. Perhaps they were not widely used. One should also know that materials in NKVD/KGB archives have been systematically destroyed, all others remain top secret, even today. But it does not make the facts about Sovet gas vans less significant or unreliably documented. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the point this is undue. Little information = little article content. Ghosts and primary sources.Batbash (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Assayer: I probably was not clear enough. My point was as follows: there is a wast amount of literature about Nazi gas vans, and that is what the article is supposed to tell. In addition, a handful of sources mention Soviet gas vans, which were probably used occasionally, at least one time, although that fact is supported just by some non-verifiable testimonies and a questionable interrogation protocol. Therefore, to the article, which is supposed to tell about Nazi gas vans, we should add a couple of sentences, in a separate section, about possible usage of gas vans in 1930s by NKVD. An exact title of this subsection doesn't matter, but the title should clearly distinguish a notable and well documented Nazi gas van story and much less notable and poorly documented Soviet gas van story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's in line with my argument, only that I object to the term "controversy", and that I remain sceptical whether it will be possible to demonstrate by reliable sources that it was the "KP article that gave a start to the whole story". In fact, the story seems to have some more roots. Holocaust deniers like Walendy seem to have started off Grigorenko's memoirs. I consider that to be of minor importance, though.--Assayer (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Imo, two independent publications gave a start to this story. First, the Grogorenko's book, which was cited only by various Holocaust deniers and, later, by Sokolov, and the KP article that used Berg's dossier. The source that confirms the second claim is Solzhenitsyn. It would not be OR to write that "in 1990, KP published the article that reported that gas vans were used in Moscow during the Great Purge", because that is exactly what Solzhenitsyn (and Albatz et al) writes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not inclined to use either Solzhenitsyn or Albatz as a source, not at least because their information is outdated. I have now read La Grande Terreur en URSS 1937-1938 by Tomasz Kizny (2013). He used the edition by Golovkova (2004). I will introduce information some time soon.--Assayer (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If Kizny is providing more detailed analysis of the Berg's story than other sources, such as Solzhenitsyn, Albatz, or Zhirnov (who is citing the original document from memory), all other sources should be removed, because they are telling about the same story, but in less details. Definitely, Kizny, who seems to use a full collection of primary sources, is more preferable than the authors whose writings are based on a single tabloid article. In addition, we have a Wheatcroft's opinion that that "sensational" story needs more analysis, so Kizny's book may provide it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! So, the book by Kizny is yet another (+1) RS on the subject. But it does not mean other sources should be eliminated if they tell something different (please see WP:NPOV). For example, the book by Albatz clearly claims something different(the quote on the page). It does not matter how did she came to her conclusions. We simply tell what RS tell, and her book is a historical scholarship. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If other sources tell "something different", because they did not make full use of the available evidence, maybe because more evidence became available after their publication, they should not be used. Simply that you agree with Albatz' POV is not sufficient reason to quote it in an Wikipedia article, because, yes, it does matter how she reached her "conclusions". --Assayer (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Memoirs by Petro Grigorenko

So, here is his famous book, "In the underground one can meet only rats", and it tells [56] on page 403 a story told to him by former prisoner Василь Иванович Тесля: — А вы знаете, Петр Григорьевич... душегубки изобрели у нас... для так называемых кулаков... для крестьян. Через некоторое время подошел «черный ворон». Дверь в здании открылась, и охрана погнала людей бегом в открытые двери автомашины. Я насчитал 27 человек — потом забыл считать, хотел понять что за люди и зачем их набивают в «воронок», стоя, вплотную друг к другу. Наконец закрыли двери, прижимая их плечами, и машина отъехала. Я хотел отойти, но позвавший меня зэк сказал: «Подожди. Они скоро вернуться». И действительно вернулись они очень быстро. Когда двери открыли, оттуда повалил черный дым и посыпались трупы людей. Тех, что не вывалились, охрана повытаскивала крючьями... Затем все трупы спустили в подвальный люк, который я до того не заметил. Почти в течение недели наблюдали мы такую картину. Корпус тот назывался «кулацким». Да и по одежде видно было, что это крестьяне.

That was a prison in the city of Omsk. Needs to be included. This shows Soviet gas vans were used not only in Butovo. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please Use English: "This is the English Wikipedia, so discussions should normally be conducted in English." Unreliable primary sources should not be used in articles. You need to show that experts have evaluated the claims and come to conclusions. There is no necessity for Wikipedia articles to ignore claims that are universally ignored. TFD (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Soviet dissident Petro Grigorenko described in his memoirs a story told by his close friend and former prisoner of Gulag Vasil Teslia. He described killings of "kulaks" in a prison in Omsk. According to him, more than 27 people were loaded to a truck, which moved away from the prison, but soon returned back. "When the doors were opened, black smoke poured out and corpses of people rained down." The corpses were then placed into the basement. Teslia watched such executions during whole week.

References

The book was published by Petro Grigorenko in New York. This is an RS. Moreover, the claim by Grigorenko was discussed in this secondary source ("Gas vans: made in the USSR", also cited on the page) by mainstream historian Dmitry Sokolov who published several books on Russian history. Yes, I do not see this specific claim cited a lot in other sources, but this does not disqualify the book as an RS. The memoirs by Grigorenko in general are famous and highly cited. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

This is second hand knowledge, hearsay, presented by Grigorenko in a dramatic fashion. If you think that this is reliable, you should take it to WP:RSN and see what the response will be. What books did this Dmitry Sokolov publish? I dare to say that the Crimean Echo, your "secondary source", is a highly opinionated newspaper. If there is a specific claim which is not supported by other sources, it may simply be fringe, no matter of how many times Grigorenko is cited on other subjects.--Assayer (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is already taken by Paul to WP:RS. So far, uninvolved contributors do not see any problem with it. It would be strange if they see a problem because there is a policy. The claim by Grigorenko was sited in other sources (e.g. [57] or [58]), but but I am not sure if this needs to be reflected on the page. As about books by Sokolov, his site tells there are 6 of them, here is one for example: [59][60]. But this is not relevant to the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that Grigorenko has been cited by Holocaust deniers. You are really not sure if this needs to be reflected on the page? So you suggest to use works by Holocaust deniers?--Assayer (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I think Grigorenko provides no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, so this concrete fragment should be considered a primary source. Its usage in that context is an obvious violation of NOR.

In addition, outstanding claims require outstanding evidences, and it is obvious that the claim that gas vans were invented and used in the USSR is an outstanding claim. Therefore, the only possible way to present all this information is to move it into a "Controversy" section and to explain that the information about possible usage of gas vans in the USSR first appeared in the KP article (1991), and it was reproduced in several publications. In addition, one mention of possible gas van usage was found in Grigorenko's book. This information is cited by some Holocaust deniers. I think, these three sentences mutatis mutandi are quite sufficient per NPOV, V, and NOR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I also suggest to start counting how many times the discussion will make a full circle. So far, there were at least three rounds (since 2018).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, "information about possible usage of gas vans in the USSR first appeared in the KP article (1991)" would be WP:OR. We do not know it, and none of the sources tells it. Second, no, I do not suggest using writings by Holocaust deniers for sourcing. Do you? If we do not use it, there is no way to source the last phrase. No, we do not make "rounds" because this is new source or two, and completely independent on Komsomol'skaya pravda. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not include a claim whether the information first appeared in the KP article. It is important to assess the sources in respect to WP:DUE, but the information itself bears no deeper relation to the topic. The current inflation of sources is misleading, though. If the same piece of music is played by several musicians one after another, it is still the same piece of music and does not all of a sudden become a symphony with several movements. Neither would I mention Holocaust deniers. The best source for that would be Holocaust Controversies. If the claim by Grigorenko was cited only by Holocaust deniers, that claim is fringe.--Assayer (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Soviet gas vans have nothing to do with the Holocaust (or Holocaust denial) because they were used much earlier, and there is no sources to suggest the idea was borrowed by Nazi. This also has nothing to do with music, but everything with WP:RS. Perhaps some sources are excessive, but the more you challenge the content, the more sources will be discovered. My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

the more you challenge the content, the more sources will be discovered. This is a very odd statement. It makes me wonder how sincerely you work on this subject. If it is meant to scare me, it doesn't work.--Assayer (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this is just a statement of fact. You challenged the content in the Soviet gas vans section on this page. I found five additional RS on this subject. That is how WP works and suppose to work. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Memoirs by ru:Шрейдер, Михаил Павлович

Appears here (another publication by the same Zhirnov in Kommersnt):

"Через два или три часа я узнал от одного из сотрудников, сопровождавших эту группу осужденных на расстрел, что приговор уже приведен в исполнение. Причем он рассказывал, что, когда закрытая автомашина прибыла к месту расстрела, всех осужденных вытаскивали из машин чуть ли не в бессознательном состоянии. По дороге они были одурманены и почти отравлены выхлопными газами, специально отведенными по спецпроводу в закрытый кузов грузовика."

This is from this book, full text online.

The author is well known [61].

This is in the city of Ivanovo, once again, not only Butovo. Must be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Another primary source which supports the notion that the NKVD used exhaust fumes to stupefy victims on their way to their execution before actually shooting them. But this source does not support the notion that mobile gas chambers were used for executing prisoners. If you proceed to dig up more primary sources you might at some point write an article on Soviet gas vans. But Wikipedia is not the place for original research.--Assayer (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No, this is a perfectly legitimate primary RS that can be cited directly. Moreover, it was cited by this secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• The use of memoirs which are primary sources (in this case based on anonymous accounts by others) comes across as WP:OR. See also WP:PRIMARY. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

First, it was cited by this secondary source [62]. Also, the direct citation of primary sources is fine per WP:PRIMARY. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The source is not high-quality as the account is not something that the author has observed himself; he's relaying an anon account. Further, reproduction of a primary source does not turn it into secondary coverage; see: Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what's the problem. The primary source is a reliably published memoir by high-ranking, even famous NKVD officer, and the secondary source compares it with info from other primary and secondary sources and comes to conclusion that the account in the primary source was true. True or not, but this is reliably sourced and important info, and generally consistent with claims by many other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no indication that the secondary source compares it with info from other primary and secondary sources and comes to conclusion that the account in the primary source was true. The memoir itself raises multiple WP:REDFLAG, for example, that its claims are not covered by multiple (secondary) mainstream sources.--Assayer (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about this secondary source. So, this primary source is actually cited and discussed by two secondary sources. What "REDFLAG" if the claim is consistent with all other RS on the subject of Soviet gas vans? My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither of your "secondary sources" provides a discussion of the source. Sokolov seems to have collected various mentionings. We may discuss the reliability of his newspaper article in another thread. The claim is not consistent with all other RS on the subject of Soviet gas vans, because if we were to believe Grigorenko's hearsay, there was an incident in Omsk, whereas other sources claim that this happened in Moscow.--Assayer (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there was a discussion of multiple sources including that one in this source, and it explains that there was no any contradiction: yes, the gas vans were used in Moscow, but they also were used in the cities of Omsk and Ivanovo. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, the disclaimer on the "Crimean echo" page says: "Точка зрения авторов может не совпадать с точкой зрения редакции. Ответственность за точность изложенных фактов несет автор" ("The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author.") That means this article is a blog. Yes, that may fit RS criteria, because the author is a professional historian. However, it is worrying that the same author hasn't bothered to publish the same material in more reputable sources, e.g. in some scholarly journal. That casts a doubt on reliability of this material, and is an additional argument in favour of separating all of that into a "Controversy" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This is just a standard disclaimer telling that the publication is not an editorial commentary. If it were an editorial commentary, then it would be less reliable source per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim in the leade

simply a summary of content currently on the page; all sources on Soviet vans tell they were "the same". Any specific differences should be described/sourced on the page and reflected in summary. That is not correct. As Robert Gellately put it, the Soviets "had no gas chambers". Thus, if a gas van is "a truck reequipped as a mobile gas chamber", the Soviets did not have one. In fact, there is now ample testimony that prisoners were not gassed to death, but ""half dead" when they arrived at the site, where most were subsequently executed."--Assayer (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think, per NPOV, V, and NOR, any mention of Soviet gas vans should be removed from the lead, and it should be mentioned only in a "Controversy" section, along with a discussion of Holocaust deniers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. There is currently nothing about Holocaust deniers on the page, and all sources including Gellately tell that the trucks were essentially the same (According to Gellately, "The Soviets sometimes used a gas van (dushegubka)...") My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I undid MVBW's edit [63], preserving here: diff. That's not a clarification, & also undue for the lead. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is due because we have a whole section about it in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The section is itself problematic as it largely consists of WP:OR based such sources as being discussed above: Talk:Gas_van#Memoirs_by_ru:Шрейдер,_Михаил_Павлович. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How come? This section uses more than 10 RS including several books by well know historians and other authors, one of them is Nobel Prize winner. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

all sources including Gellately tell that the trucks were essentially the same - that's simply not true. Only one source, Albats, implies that the Soviets used "the very same machinery" as the Nazis and that's POV. Other than that every mentioning of the same incident, including primary sources, is used to create the misleading illusion that the topic of "Soviet gas vans" is well researched and widely covered, which it isn't. --Assayer (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

All sources, including Gellately tell "gas vans" (or gas trucks), i.e. the subject of this page. Several sources tell they were the same. Once again if there are any specific differences, let's describe them on the page per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources use the same term (i.e. signifier), but that does not mean that the trucks themselves (i.e. the signified) are the same.--Assayer (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Paul, Assayer, and Coffman. Original research and fringe content based on eyewitness primary accounts should be removed.Batbash (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede should be a summery of all important parts of the article, the Soviet use of them is a major part of the article. Also OR refers to our research, not research published off wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The point is that the Soviet van should not be a major part of it: all "independent" secondary sources actually tell the story published in 1990 in one tabloid. This story is based on a single NKVD document. Other sources are primary, and they are questionable. Therefore, the Soviet section should be made as small as just a single paragraph, and the lead modified accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That is in dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, not. That virtually all secondary sources are based on a single tabloid article is a well established fact. There is just one user who is raising the same (already addressed) point again and again. I am trying to find the mention of Soviet gas van in English scholarly literature, but I can't. That means that every person who tries to find information about gas vans gets results that are related only to the Holocaust and similar events. That means we have a HUGE POV problems here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So you have found source then?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not the point. My point is that if you are playing a "neutral Wikipedian" game, you get only the sources that are related to the Holocaust. A "neutral Wikipedian" is my approach to understand what majority of sources say: to do that, you select the most generic search phrase and look what majority results are talking about. If I select ""gas van" -"der Waals"", I get tons of sources about Nazi. To make the search more narrow, I add "Soviet", but I still see no information about Soviet gas vans. Therefore, it is obvious that to find a handful of sources saying about Soviet gas van in an ocean of sources telling about Nazi gas vans, one has to do meticulous search among non-scholarly sources, majority of which are even non-English. Obviously, that is possible only is that person has some previous knowledge about that subject, and, obviously, that is a fringe POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So if you do a search in German about a German topic you get more hits then about a Russian one? Also the study of the Holocaust is far more prevalent (we have after all Holocaust museums and research institutes in the west, we have none that I am ware of dedicated to Stalin's crimes). The fact however that many scholarly works on the subject see fit to mention the soviet gas vans means that yes it is very much part and parcel of the subject. So yes, that is the point, RS discus it they mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, criticism of Stalinism is more abundant in English scholarly literature than in Russian one, therefore, your analogy with German vs Russian is not working.

If you see mentions of Soviet gas vans in scholarly literature, please, drop me a link to your search procedure.

And, yes, you found correct words: some RS exist that mention Soviet gas vans, and we also have to do that. In contrast, tons of RS exist that describe Nazi gas vans, and their usage during the Holocaust in details. That means the article should be devoted (99%) to Nazi gas vans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Then expand the section about Nazi Germany as much as you wish. But instead of doing just that, you dispute all RS on the Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

So instead of following academic scholarship, which usually confines itself to a brief mentioning of a certain incident (e.g. Colton), if it does not omit the incident altogether, you would suggest to expand the section on Soviet gas vans to include any possible sources? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and it is not sound editorial reasoning to expand a certain section just to keep the balance, when a minor detail is overblown by dedicated editors.--Assayer (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the multiple RS currently cited in this section tell about different aspects and details of the gas van usage in the USSR, which had happen in at least three different cities (Moscow, Omsk and Ivanovo) according to these sources. This info did not come at all from the same article in Komsomolskaya pravda. This is a fantasy by Paul. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You have some sources, which speak of Moscow, you have one primary source which speaks of Omsk, you have another primary source which speaks of Ivanovo, but you don't have historical scholarship which states that "gas van usage in the USSR had happened in at least three different cities".--Assayer (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there are 2 sources telling about Omsk, one of them is secondary, and three sources telling about Ivanovo, two of them are secondary. Sokolov is a historian who published in newspaper. At the very least, this is not self-published source like the blog by Terry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If a source is quoted elsewhere, that does not make it two sources. It's still the same source. The Crimean Echo (or Echo of Crimea) does not represent historical scholarship.--Assayer (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not just quoted. It has been discussed and evaluated in context of the subject by an expert. But regardless, these are two very different RS by two different authors. We follow WP:RS, that's the policy. There is absolutely no requirement to use only scholarship in WP pages. And, again, this is a source published (not self-published) in a newspaper by a historian who also published books that qualify as scholarship. But I should take a break from editing this page. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you dig up an opinion piece by someone in an obscure Crimean newspaper, that's not a perfect RS. I do not care what else that author may have published. So far the credentials of this Dmitry Sokolov are basically unknown. You like to forget NPOV, in particular WP:DUE, which says, I may remind you, that viewpoints are to be represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Aspects of minor significance should not receive "as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". And, as is explained in WP:BALANCE, "discussion of isolated events ... may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Arguing that WP pages should reflect not only the viewpoints of scholarship, but also vierpoints exhibited in newspapers, runs counter to WP:BESTSOURCES.--Assayer (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wait, his name is Дмитрий СОКОЛОВ (Dmitry Sokolov), not Boris Sokolov (a historian). That means we have an obscure article in an obscure newspaper authored by some obscure person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, this is Dmitry Sokolov, not Boris Sokolov. Here is one of his history books: [64], and review to this book: [65]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We are going in circles. If you can suggest specific changes or new specific version of this section, you can post it here, and we can discuss. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The "review" that you linked to is actually an interview with the author who has started publishing monographs annually since 2013. But what are Sokolov's credentials? Is he a local historian? Does he hold any teaching posts? What an impact did his work have? He seems to cherish the legacy of the White movement, though.--Assayer (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, according to this "review", he is a local Sevastopol historian, who is writing about local history of Crimea and after 2013 publish "monographs". I failed to find any information about his credentials. It is virtually impossible to find citations of his works in google scholar, because it is a very common Russian name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is just an interview in mainstream press (ru:Агентство политических новостей) showing his work was generally accepted, and he is a historian. So, his article published (not self-published!) in a newspaper qualify as an RS. I do not need anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Good for you, if you do not need anything else, but not good enough for this piece to qualify as a RS for Wikipedia. You found and introduced the source, so you seem to be familiar with his work and may provide some more information. He is a historian, you say. Where did he study, to begin with? Where does he teach/work?--Assayer (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly it does not qualify per WP:RS? My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The question is: Why does he qualify per RS? Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. So, please, go ahead. That you tried to sell an interview with the author as a "review" does not enhance your credibility, though.--Assayer (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I already did just that. This publication in mainstream Russian newspaper provides a lot of info about him. Based on that info, he is very clearly an established researcher in the field of Russian history and authored a number of publication including scholarly books. His article was reliably published (not self-published) in a newspaper. This is all we need. His article is important and must be used on this page because this is probably the most detailed description of the Soviet gas vans story published in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

So you are not able to provide information about the author. Who says that he is an established researcher? Who says that his books are scholarly? Who determines that his article was fact-checked by the newspaper? You simply claim all these things. His article is not even a description of the Soviet gas vans story, it's simply a collection of "Soviet gas van stories" (plural) and he wants us to believe that all these stories, some of them mere hearsay, were somehow (probably) true. If his article is so "important", as you claim, just provide some 3rd party sources that support your claims. And, no, an interview with the author is not a 3rd party source independent from the subject.--Assayer (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Who says? The publication I linked to just above [66]. You can use Google translator if you wish. Yes, we would need a 3rd party source independent from the subject if we wanted to create a new page about the person. But I do not have such intention. There is no requirement to study in great detail the biography of every author per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to help me out. In your source, I do not find the words established and scholarly being applied to Sokolov and his work.--Assayer (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the APN interview is just an opinion of some Domety Zavolsky about Sokolov. The question is what is the ground to conclude that guy is an expert whose opinion on Sokolov has a non-zero weight?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• An article published by a nn historian, in a regional newspaper, citing memoirs only, which in turn cite hearsay does not make the content due for the page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Soviet gas van and the Holocaust denial

I got a full access to the Alvarez's book (Santiago Alvarez:The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation.With major contributions by Pierre Marais. Corrected reprint of the first edition of September 2011. Uckfield, UK: CASTLE HILL PUBLISHER). This book was published by the publisher house founded by a known Holocaust denier, and its conclusion is that German gas vans never existed. There is a small section in the book devoted to Soviet gas vans, where Grigorenko's memoirs are considered dubious, although likely, and where the Berg's story is reproduced in essentially the same vein as it is currently described in the article. Don't we find it worrying that the article reproduces the narrative of the book published by the known Holocaust denier's publisher house?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Alvarez's book it the only mention of Grigorenko in google scholar regarding gas vans.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever Google searches (or any other database searches) may produce is irrelevant when specific good RS (i.e. the book by Grigorenko and its citation in the article by Sokolov) have been provided on talk. One should also check other languages.18:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also this. According to WP:RS, we simply do not use any clearly fringe sources, such as apparently that one, for 3rd party claims. If we had a page about a known Holocaust denier X, then mentioning his book on his page would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Saying that, I would strongly support including materials about Holocaust deniers on this page, which should be sourced to 3rd party RS. However, it is all related to the Holocaust denial, i.e. to the usage of gas vans by Nazi. The Soviet vans were used much earlier and unrelated to the Holocaust. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Starting in 1936?

User My very best wishes insists that Isai Berg started gassing prisoners in 1936 [67] The "great purges" started with the NKVD issued Decree No. 00447 of July 31, 1937. The first victims were executed at Butova on August 8, 1937. Berg began to supervise executions at Butovo in the summer of 1937. How do these well established and undisputed facts fit together with the repeated claim, that everything started in 1936?--Assayer (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure. It was included here [68]. This source, a response by a Russian state security official in Argumenty i Facty tells [69]: "По своему прямому назначению - для уничтожения людей - "душегубка" была впервые применена в 1936 г." ("By its intended purpose - to destroy people - the "gas van" was first used in 1936."). Now, if other sources provide a different date, we should look at this. According to this, the executions at Butovo started in the end of 1935. Here Golovkova tells about first executions in Kommunarka shooting ground, this is a different place. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source in question is under this header: "Lieutenant colonel of the Main Directorate of the Protection of the Russian Federation A.A. OLIGOV answers reader question". MVBW, what makes this a reliable source? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You really use some "readers ask questions"-stuff from 1993 for Wikipedia?? How about some standard work on the Great Terror? "The first ninety-one victims were transported from Moscow gaols to the shooting range on 8 August 1937" (Karl Schlögl, Moscow, 1937).--Assayer (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The question is not when the executions in Butovo started (this source tells it was in the end of 1935, yes that was before The Great Terror, so the sources on the Great Terror can mean something different), but when the Soviet gas vans were used for the first time. If you have some RS telling just that, welcome to use them. But in the absence of better sources, I think the reliably published interview with a Russian state official (in Argumenty i Facty) is an acceptable source. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• What makes "Lieutenant colonel of the Main Directorate of the Protection of the Russian Federation A.A. OLIGOV answers reader question" an RS? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it probably needs an explicit attribution, but otherwise this has been reliably published in Argumenty i Facty. That was a reputable newspaper, especially in 1990s. The guy who answers the question has access to KGB archives. You have better sources on this subject? Fine. Please use them. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Kizny, "it is not known on what scale these trucks were used, but presumably during the period when Berg directed the executions (October 1937 to 4 August 1938), at least some of the convicts were gassed." And yes, Kizny's research is not only far superior to "A.A. OLIGOV answers reader questions", but also in line with other sources on the Great Terror and the use of Butova shooting range for executions.--Assayer (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've checked our policy, it says that mainstream newspapers are reliable sources. I don't think that relates to every publication in every newspaper. A burden of proof rests on those who believe each concrete newspaper publication can be considered mainstream.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Does Kizny also and very definitely tells that Berg was the first person who used the gas vans? If not, that could be someone else in 1936. There is no contradiction. Regardless, the entire point of using multiple RS per WP:NPOV is to provide all different reliably sourced (WP:RS) views on the subject. For example, this Russian state official and Kizny will have a very different perspective and knowledge on the subject. By including both views, we make a more complete and objective picture. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there are authors who are not interested in the question who "invented" the gas van. It is your source Oligov that very definitely names Berg as the "father" of the gas van. So we don't have two reliable views, but one which is obviously flawed and unreliable. Including flawed claims is not objective, but misleading. --Assayer (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly Kizny is telling on the subject of Soviet gas vans? Just a phrase? A paragraph? If you could quote it here directly, that would help to evaluate if there is any contradiction. I still believe that publications in Argumenty i Facty qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I did quote what he said about the dates. Taken altogether he devotes a couple of paragraphs to the subject. Strange change of mind, btw[70]. Keep in mind, however, that Berg did not oversee executions at Butova before the summer of 1937. Thus your reader's letter section entry is contradictory in itself.--Assayer (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be fixed. The statement by the FSO guy is so brief, it is not clear if he means they were used in 1936 by Berg or by others. My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

If the statement is too brief to be clear what is meant, that's a strong indication of unreliability.--Assayer (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not find the claim about 1936 anywhere else, and yes, that source can probably go, even though it was reliably published. So self-reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Assayer, actually, per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, which means this source is good only for the statement about the opinion of that guy, not for the statement of the fact. Therefore, it is relevant only to the article about this person, however, he is hardly notable enough to have his own article. In this article, his opinion has a zero weight. In addition, it is a primary source, so we have an WP:OR issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Paul, you don't need to tell me. This will not stop My very vest wishes from scouring the internet for further sources, I presume, regardless how obscure, unreliable and even outright ridicoulus those sources may be.--Assayer (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am just explaining you that instead of building logical arguments you may refer directly to guidelines that explicitly tell not to use such sources as secondary sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward: other uses

I hereby propose we remove the vastly expanded Soviet Union section that is full of primary accounts of dubious provenance and barely heard of. Instead, we should have an Other uses section with the following content:

A sensational claim of gas van use by the Soviet Union around Moscow in 1937 has been put forward by Valentin Kovalev.

This summarizes this claim that is mostly repeated by Holocaust deniers. All in favor, say aye! Batbash (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Aye! Batbash (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Your source is from 1996 and outdated. The Soviet gas vans have been covered later by several Western academics like Timothy J. Colton in his 1998 Harvard University Press book (reference no. 18), Catherine Merridale of University of Birmingham in her 2002 book (citation no. 17) and also Rodric Braithwaite in his 2002 Yale University Press book. The last one isn't yet referenced in this article but could be added:. The sourcing could be scrutinized further here, though we are allowed to use Russian-language sources per WP:NOENG. Also, not sure what denying Stalinist crimes has to do with Holocaust denial. --Pudeo (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The subject was covered in multiple RS and must be included per WP:NPOV. Speaking about the Kovalev, what is the reference, exactly, and what it tells? It can be used if verifiable. I do not think the article by Wheatcroft should be used on this page because it mentioned the subject only in footnote. My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, actually, you are a new participant of this discussion, and you seem to be unaware of some important details. According to the information that was presented on this talk page, the primary sources the whole Soviet gas van story is based upon are as follows:

1. Berg's interrogation protocol (the NKVD document), where he conceded he ordered to use the vans to accelerate execution process;
2. The set of primary sources (witness testimonies), collected by Golovkova and published by Lipkov in Kontinent. It tells about Berg's story, but it contains some testimonies that shed more light on that story. Thus, according to one testimony, the victims were not supposed to be poisoned to death in Berg's vans, because they were subjected to identification before execution; it seems the goal was just to make them semi-conscious to suppress their ability to resist. According to another testimony, Berg's interrogation protocol is not more trustworthy than other Great Purge time NKVD documents;
3. Grigirenko's memoirs where he reproduces a story that was told to him by some witness of alleged usage of gas vans in Omsk.
4. A memoir where the van was used to suppress the ability of the victims to resist before the execution process.

To the best of my understanding, this is an exhaustive list of primary sources (I saw no mention of other primary sources in any secondary sources). These primary sources are used as follows:

1. Berg's protocol was used, for the first time, in 1990, in the Komsomolskaya Pravda article authored by Zhirnov. This publication was used as a sole source by Solzhenitsyn, Albatz, Merridale, Colton, Gellately, and, probably, by Kovalev. Later publications authored by Zhirnov are also based on that document (Zhirnov does not mention any other primary sources);
2. It seems that Golovkova's collection were used by Kizny, but I have no access to that book, maybe, Assayer can tell more about that;
3. Grigorenko's memoirs has not been used by any RS except some Holocaust deniers writings and a 2012 publication in some obscure local Ukrainian newspaper;
4. This source was also cited only in the same 2012 publication in some obscure local Ukrainian newspaper.

Therefore, although I also do not support Batbash's proposal, I agree that the current version of the Soviet section should be significantly modified to remove primary sources and majority of obscure and duplicated sources. We do not need sources that tell essentially the same story based on a single original duplication. And I agree that Wheatcroft's opinion has a significant weight, for he is the most notable scholar (among those who are cited in the article) who writes about Stalinism.

I would like to see what exactly Rodric Braithwaite writes about that, and which primary/secondary sources he is using. If he is just reproducing some of publications listed by me above, it is hardly impressive.

I do not believe in conspiracy, and I cannot believe historians can write about some topic withoud disclosing their sources. If some historian says the same as other historians, but he does not disclose his sources, that means he picked this story from some previous publication. If a historian discovered some fresh source, he will definitely cite it. Therefore, unless Braithwaite presents some detailed description of the gas van story that is supported by some recently discovered source, we can assume he is just telling the famous story published by Zhirnov in Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1990. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To demonstrate my thought, consider the classical EPR article. It is cited by 18060 other sources. Do we need to include them all into the article about EPR paradox? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Brathwaite cites Colton and a BBC documentary GULAG (2000) which apparently features eyewitness accounts. So the inflation of sources will continue. To say that The Soviet gas vans have been covered later by several Western academics is crude given the paucity of both information and sources presented by Colton and those who took their information from him. --Assayer (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Brathwaite's Moscow does not appear to be published by Yale University Press - see World Cat entries for it ... where it's first publication is in 2006 by Profile Books. The link above goes to this edition. The revised 2010 version has a notice on the copyright page that it was first published in 2006 by Profile. I'm not sure where the Yale University Press publication came from? Braithwaite did publish a book through Yale in 2002 - but it was Across the Moscow River, which is not about WWII - but rather about events in Russia during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Trusting Wikipedia was a mistake. Struck through the wrong publishers. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break 2

I think it is a time to summarise the discussion. I've just re-read the 2018 discussion, and I came to a very disappointing conclusion: enormously long discussions here and at RSN/NPOVN had a very non-impressive results: a couple of highly unreliable primary and secondary sources were identified that can hardly be added to the article, and that shed no additional light on a Soviet gas van story. In my opinion, the only positive result was identification of the Wheatcroft's statement (interestingly, I was aware of that Wheatcroft's article, but I didn't pay attention to that comment). I think that that enormous waste of our time was almost totally senseless, and it had lead to on progress as compared with the result of our 2018 discussion. I suggest to stop and summarise the discussion as follows:

1. All secondary sources that do not cite primary sources and say essentially the same as Albatz, Colton etc., should be removed, for they definitely reproduce the Berg's story.
2. The sources that cite Berg's story should be used, but we can leave just a couple of them, for they say essentially the same; there is no reason to include ALL sources telling about the same event.
3. Articles in local newspapers should not be used as not sufficiently reliable per WP:SOURCES.
4. Primary sources that do not directly and unequivocally support the claims found in reliable secondary should be removed per WP:NOR.
5. The Wheatcroft's statement that the Berg's story is "sensational" and requires further verification should be added to the article.
6. Further attempts to prolong this discussion should be considered WP:STONEWALL.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wheatcroft's statement that the Berg's story is "sensational" and requires further verification should be added to the article. I think it's a poor idea to use source from 1996 to say something is sensational and needs more research, when newer sources have been published after that. When the Harvard University Press (Colton 1998) and the Yale University Press (Braithwaite 2002) have published books with passages about the subject, it is reasonable to assume they have their quality control in place, instead of dismissing the sources they possibly used with extensive original research. --Pudeo (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Pudeo. Speaking about long discussions here, why they are happening? That's because every single source that clearly qualify per WP:RS was challenged by Paul and Assayer to infinity, using various incorrect pretenses like "it was quoted in a blog about Holocaust deniers", "it cited a tabloid" (actually, Komsomolskaya pravda is not tabloid journalism, and it does not matter what was cited if the book was written by an expert like Albats, Colton, etc.), "this is a primary source" (the reliably published primary sources are allowed), "this author does not work in a University, what are his credentials?", etc. That should stop, especially now, when the sources (excluding the ridiculous blog and Holocaust deniers brought by Paul) were vetted on WP:RSNB. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

instead of dismissing the sources they possibly used What does that mean? Is this another attempt to argue that certain sources are perfect, because they might have utilized more sources than they actually cited? There is no need to assume anything. Just stick to the footnotes. If several publications cite the same source (or each other) over and over again, it means that there is no more research. If anything should stop, it is the constant misrepresentation of arguments, amounting even to fake quotes. --Assayer (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedians just cite information from reliable sources, not investigate the footnotes in said sources and research the origins of each claim. Perhaps this discussion would be easier if it would be clear what is being proposed, aside from cutting the whole section to just one sentence, which clearly is inappropriate. Just FYI: Batbash (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. --Pudeo (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Basically, you wish to maintain that more research has been conducted merely based upon the date of publication and speculation rather than on the evidence that’s being presented in the source in question. That’s guesswork. Footnotes are an integral part of historical scholarship. If you do not care about the footnotes, you are not able to assess the reliability of the information and therefore the reliability of the source. You will neither be able to assess the proportions of the viewpoint in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. It is being proposed to use and quote every available source on the so called “Soviet gas van”, regardless of importance, reliability, repetitiveness, and significance, including primary sources and reader’s letter sections. That’s a problem of WP:UNDUE.--Assayer (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This source simply does not tell anything new or different on the subject, "sensational" tells nothing of substance (by contrast, the books by Albats and Gellately do claim or emphasize something of their own, like that vans by NKVD and Nazi were the same). If we want to reduce the number of refs (perhaps we should not), then the article by W. should be first to go. My very best wishes (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, by writing "Wikipedians just cite information from reliable sources, not investigate the footnotes in said sources and research the origins of each claim" you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with our policy, which says: "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." That means our policy requires that we performed analysis of sources, their structure, arguments etc, to decide which sources to use and how to do that, and investigation of references is an important aspect of that analysis. Of course, we all are amateurs here, and your superficial approach to the analysis of sources is quite understandable and forgivable. However, you cannot demand other users to approach to the source analysis in the same way. Please, show more respect to our policy and other users.

With regard to your proposal to clarify what is being proposed, that is a good point. I am explaining that again:

1. Do not cite every source that cites the KP article, and that uses the KP article as a sole source (there sources are Albatz, Merridale, Solzhenitsyn etc). That KP article has been cited by several sources, and adding all of them to the article would create a false impression of independent confirmation of that event by several independent authors. I propose to select 2-3 good English sources that presents more facts and less speculations.
2. If some good English source are available that tell about the same Berg's case independently on Zhirnov, add this source too. It seems Kizny uses Golovkova's materials, which means makes him a good complement to Zhirnov (and to the sources that use Zhirnov as a only source).
3. Exclude all quotes from primary sources that are not cited by good English sources.
4. Exclude sources that speak about "gas vans" in general, without providing any details and references.

Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, such your suggestions go against WP:NPOV. You propose to selectively exclude sources just because they "cite the KP article", "not cited by good English sources", do not provide a lot of details, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3.

It seems we are ready to summarise sources. In connection to that, I would like to collect the following information:

• 1. How many sources cited in the article or on the talk page use the KP article by Zhirnov as the only source of information? Under "the only source" I mean "they do not cite any other source".
• 2. How many sources use Golovkova/Lipkov?
• 3. How many sources cite Grigorenko (which is a primary source)?
• 4. Are there any sources that use other primary sources?
• 5. If there is a reason to conclude that some authors present the results of their independent archival studies of that issue, please, name there sources and explain why do you think they present their our research, not just discuss the works of others.

Under "sources" I mean "reliable sources", which may include mainstream newspapers, but not local ones, and may not include newspaper publications that do not disclose their sources of information. Please, post your sources below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is no definite answer to questions 1-4, and can not be. Many secondary RS do not disclose all their sources, but only some of them. Others do not disclose anything at all, but still qualify as secondary RS. But we already talked about this many times before. #5 - of course authors of all secondary sources do some personal analysis. Saying that all "local" newspapers or sources which do not explicitly disclose their sources do not qualify as RS is against our WP:RS policy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Many secondary RS do not disclose all their sources, but only some of them. Humbug. Sources which can be traced back to the same source of information/research, can be combined into one reference. Merridale cites Colton, for example. It makes no sense to use both as individual references. Moreover, Wikipedia proposes summary style. It is not summary style, if Wikipedia provides more details (and speculations) on the subject than Merridale, Colton, Brathwaite, and Gellateley combined.--Assayer (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• " Sources which can be traced back to the same source of information/research, can be combined into one reference." No, they can be combined only if they say exactly the same. If they claim something at least partly different (like the book by Albats), they must be used separately, possibly with explicit attribution (e.g. to Albats). We also need to provide some brief direct quotations since it was disputed above what exactly these sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Assayer, can you please post the quotes from all these authors below? We can think together how to summarize what they say.

In addition, according to WP:RS AGE, With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. That means that, contrary to what Pudeo said, more recent sources that tell the same KP story are less preferrable per our guidelines, so Brathwaite is totally redundant. The more I am thinking about that the more I realize that all recent additions are not an improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Colton, Merridale, Albats, Brathwaite, and Gellateley have all been repeatedly quoted at full length on this talk page. There is no need to do it again. I provided a summary about a month ago.[71] I may expand and rework that section based upon Kizny.

they can be combined only if they say exactly the same - which is what they do. it was disputed above what exactly these sources say - was it? I remember that someone spoke of plural when the source clearly used singular, but I considered that to be a misunderstanding rather than a dispute. Albats adds her own interpretation (POV). Who supported her interpretation? There is a vast body of literature comparing Stalinist terror to Nazi terror. Those who argue that both were basically akin, that Communist terror even provided a model for Nazi terror, are clearly in the minority. --Assayer (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, Albats, Gellateley and authors of other secondary sources usually add their own interpretations. That's why they are secondary, that's why the secondary sources are recommended by the policy, and that's why we must cite all good secondary sources if they tell something different, as they do. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please, do that. I think the content of the Soviet section should cite Colton, Merridale, Albats, Gellateley, and Kizny, and it should be clearly explained that they describe the same single event, and that first three author cite KP, whereas Kizny used additional data. Other sources should be removed per this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As about citing Wheatcroft, if anyone insists (I am not sure), he should be cited correctly, i.e. by providing proper context. On page 1348 Wheatcroft tells: "Auschwitz as a center for mass killing should be compared with the mass shootings [ref 75] of the NKVD throughout the 1930s...". In the ref [75] he refer to the book by Valentin Kovalev where Kovalev tells about the Soviet gas vans. In effect, Wheatcroft follows the same narrative as Yevgenia Albats (who also mentioned Auschwitz); he is only less sure about the Soviet gas vans than Albats, Kovalev, Colton, Gallately and others who described Soviet gas vans as an indisputable historical fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of citing correctly: You only cited Wheatcroft's suggestion, what should be compared, but you did not cite his conclusion. "These Soviet mass shootings did indeed precede the German mass killings, but since there was so little understanding of what happened in 1937 and 1938 it is difficult to imagine the Nazis being greatly influenced by them." This is not the same narrative as subscribed to by Albats, it's a refutation.--Assayer (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not at all about gas vans. So does not belong to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Assayer, I think that is a time to summarise these discussions (I mean the noticeboards and talk page discussions). It is clear that available good quality secondary sources discuss just one incident of Soviet gas van usage, namely, the Berg's story (some of those sources do not name him directly, but they use the primary/secondary sources that discuss Berg's case only). We have one good quality secondary source that call that story sensational (Wheatcroft), and one primary source that says that Berg's own words should not be trusted, and that his vans were not intended to kill peoples (Lipkov). That is all what we have about Berg. We are not allowed to use primary sources, so we cannot question validity of secondary sources writing about Berg, and we should limit ourselves with Colton, Albats, Kizny et al, and Wheatcroft. I suggest to use the sources that provide more details on that case, and omit sources that just mention this story tangentially. I also think that Albats' opinion should be presented (with attribution). Wheathcroft's opinion about a low likelihood of influence of NKVD on Nazi should not be included per NOR, but his opinion of Berg's story should be included.

With regard to other sources, they are either unreliable (per RSN discussion), or are primary (which include memoirs and op-ed publications), and should be excluded. In accordance with NPOV, the mention of Soviet gas van should be removed from the lede.

Do you agree with that? If you agree, and if no fresh and outstanding arguments will follow from other users, I think we should implement these changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, you are incorrect. (a) Per WP:NPOV, we can not limit ourselves only by RS of your choice, and especially if different RS do not make exactly identical claims. (b) Primary RS are allowed per policy [72], but just need to be used directly ("primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot..."). Besides, some sources you call "primary" are hardly primary. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Yes, I basically agree. But for matters of clarification I have requested sourcing restrictions according to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. [73]

Not every source which merely paraphrases another source has to be added. Not even all verifiable information need not be included in an article, for the simple reason that the significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, are to be representes in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The guidelines do not speak of "exactly identical claims". As "accounts written by people who are directly involved" memoirs are primary sources, however, and shall not be used for exceptional claims.--Assayer (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we should use one source that cites KP (Colton or Merridale) and one source that uses Golovkova (Kizny); we also should cite Albats and Wheatcroft's opinia about that (with attribution). Anyway, the whole Soviet section should tell about Berg's story only, because other stories are just (hearsay)^2.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Assayer, taking into account this, we can do that now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well, you may call this selfish, but I did spent some time to find more sources on this subject. I know: these sources do qualify as RS, they do tell something different (for example, that the vans were used in other Soviet cities, in addition to Moscow), and I know that such claims by these RS must be included per WP:NPOV. The "five pillars" must be respected. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RSNB discussion

There are claims by Paul and Assayer above that certain sources were problematic. However, all these sources were mentioned in RSNB discussion here, and the uninvolved contributors did not find any problems with them. The exception was obviously the personal blog, more specifically this post, which should not be used. So, I strongly suggest that we should stop discussing the reliability of these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You should not draw any conclusions from discussions that we did not have. In the thread it was pointed out that the discussion rather concerned WP:DUE than WP:RS. If you want to instigate a discussion about certain sources, you may do so. Silence does not mean approval, though. --Assayer (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the participants said there are no problems with WP:RS, but one could have concerns about WP:DUE, which is an entirely different question. Speaking about WP:DUE, two things are obvious: (a) the section about Nazi gas vans should be significantly expanded (you promised to do just that, and no one including me objects), and (b) yes, we should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" on the Soviet gas vans - I certainly agree. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I started a new RSN discussion where we analyze specifically the local Ukrainian newspaper article. Let's wait for the results.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Even if we do not use this source, we can simply use books by Yevgenia Albats, Petro Grigorenko, and Shreider, along with others. All of them (primary and secondary ones) are perfectly allowed per WP:RS. Speaking about the "weight" of the statements/views, it is determined by the relative coverage by sources on the subject of Soviet gas vans (I guess we all agree that they and Nazi vans should be covered as two separate sub-subjects/sections even if they were "the same"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

However, as of now [74], I do not see any WP:RS-based reasons not to use this article. This is an article published by a historian in a newspaper, and he cites all his primary and secondary sources. This is not an "editorial". My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Split

I do not like the split because some sources tell the Soviet and Nazi gas vans were the same, but the split looks like a reasonable compromise. I also assume that the sourcing restriction may be placed on this page at any time, so it is essentially in effect. Hence, if there are academic sources (such as the book by Albats) which tell something about Nazi gas vans, such sources can be used on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As we talked before, this page needs a history of invention of gas vans in Germany. I can put some content about it if no one else will. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the others also do not like the split, but that is the nature of compromise. The brief history of gas vans could also be added to Execution van as well, I suppose. --Nug (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to have an RS that explicitly connects Chinese vans and Nazi gas vans. We do have an academic RS that connects Soviet and Nazi gas vans (the book by Albats), along with other presumably "less academic" sources which do the same. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Talk:Gas van, but I'll mention it here, too. I have serious objections to someone WP:BOLDly moving an article and then editing the resulting redirect (in this case, turning it into a DB), since doing so means that the move can only be reverted by an admin. WP:BRD rests on the idea that a bold edit can easily be reverted, and this can't be reverted without admin involvement (effectively meaning that Nug required no consensus - and, indeed, made no effort to obtain consensus - before making their WP:BOLD move, whereas we now need consensus to move it back.) Given that me, you, and Paul Siebert have all disagreed with the split, I suggest we revert it and at least have a WP:RM to decide what happens - obviously if there's an RM, I absolutely must insist that a no-consensus outcome result in the article not being split, since there was no consensus to split it originally and it only seems to remain split because the technical details of how moves work mean it's impossible to simply revert one once the redirect has been edited. I can understand the desire to resolve the dispute, and I can see where Nug was coming from, but moving an article and then editing the redirect should never be taken as a bold action with no prior discussion like this. EDIT: I've also opened a discussion about the undesireability of this sort of move as a WP:BOLD action on the talk page for BOLD. --Aquillion (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Update: I intend to list this at technical requested moves for a reversal, at least for now (if there later does turn out to be a consensus for the split, we can do it properly later, but I'm not seeing it right now. I can understand the desire and I can see how it might have seemed like an easy fix, but it's clear at this point that doing it like this is like pouring oil on troubled fires.) For now I've held off on the request to poke Nug and see if they want to contest this reversal. --Aquillion (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me on my talk page. More than three people were involved in the long discussions on this topic. A number of other editors seem to object to having Soviet and Nazi gas vans in the same article. I can understand those objections as it is clear from the sources that the Nazis independently invented their gas vans, they are in no way related to each other and were distinct in time, place and usage. Some editors above have also expressed the concern that conflating Soviet and Nazi gas vans together may in some way be a form of Holocaust denialism. In my view, Soviet gas van is as distinct from Nazi gas van as British concentration camps is distinct from Nazi concentration camps. If you are looking for an easy fix then it would be simple enough to conduct a straw poll of the other principle editors who were involved in the extensive discussions above, and if there is general agreement among them that Nazi and Soviet gas van articles should be conflated together, then I have no objection to a re-merge. --Nug (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the whole point of going to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Technical_requests is that I don't think any discussion (and certainly not a straw poll) is necessary to revert a WP:BOLD move to which multiple editors have objected. I understand a desire to resolve things, but your personal desire to split the page doesn't allow you to do so without a consensus, or to demand that other people then hold a straw poll or come up with their own solution to reverse your actions. Since you have set preconditions I have listed it as contested, but I strongly advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this. --Aquillion (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As a remedy which I'd previously suggesged several times, the split has my support.     ←   ZScarpia   10:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there's still no clear consensus for it at the moment, so I have posted a request to revert it at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Requests_to_revert_undiscussed_moves. WP:BOLD is fine in some circumstances, but moving a page that is the subject of a dispute, and then editing the redirect in a way that makes it impossible to easily revert, should be done after discussion and once a clear consensus has been established in support of that action; it makes no sense to invoke WP:BOLD, then treat your move as a fait accomplai that requires discussion to reverse. Once it's been reversed, if you still want to split, we can use WP:RM or an WP:RFC (which, obviously, should have been done to begin with.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything and your advice to WP:DROPTHESTICK seems rather aggressive given our brief interaction. You clearly haven't been following the discussion on this talk page, I wouldn't be surprised if some other editor would contest your proposed technical move. There has been a long running dispute which has resulted an editor topic banned and numerous reports to WP:AE. I sought to short circuit this spiral of conflict. You seem more concerned with the application of WP:BOLD, which is a mere editing guideline, while the circumstance of this content dispute merited WP:IGNORE, which is policy. So far only you and Paul Siebert opposes this split, MVBW says the "split looks like a reasonable compromise" and ZScarpia supports it too. --Nug (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As you probably know, WP:BOLD is just the first step in WP:BRD. A split has been contested, so the next step should be to restore a status quo and discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• For now, I have reverted the split (insofar as is technically possible) by reverting the relevant edits to this page, redirecting Soviet gas van here, and returning Gas van to a redirect to this page. Do not revert this while discussions are in progress - for now, we should keep things at the status quo per WP:BRD. Splitting a page with essentially no prior discussion is very bold, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the split. To me it seems to be a WP:CFORK, to say the least. It somehow solves some of the WP:UNDUE issues in one article, but only by extending these issues into another article. Since the subarticle must be written from a neutral point of view, too, and the problems with sourcing persist, the issues have not been solved. Original research based upon primary sources remains original research in any article. And to be clear: No one objected to having Soviet and Nazi gas vans in the same article or claimed that this is a form of Holocaust denial. There haven’t been “numerous reports to WP:AE“, but two and this dispute has not lead to a topic ban.--Assayer (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Since this discussion is filed as a move request and the discussion in this section has begun to turn into a discussion not directly related to moving the page in its current form, I am closing this as a move request, given that there seems clear lack of consensus for moving the page and since this discussion is listed in the backlog of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Consensus for other options (such as "merge" or "split") is not definitive either at this point; however, any alternative options to moving the page can continue to be discussed in other/new sections or other venues if need be. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note This move request closure is invalid (if it says what I think it does — it is worded rather confusingly). It should have been about consensus to split, not merge. El_C 23:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: The Wikipedia:Requested moves process is for propositions to retitle a page, and I did not see consensus for that option. The "split" versus "merge" comments are akin to WP:WRONGFORUM issues in a move discussion. For this reason, my close does not reflect assessing consensus for "split" or "merge" and can be discussed in a separate section ... which, at this point, seems to have started as a subsection of this one. For more information, please see my comment in the aforementioned subsection. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Nazi gas van → Gas van – User:Nug split this article (which he himself acknowledged was WP:BOLD) with no discussion or warning here, and immediately edited the redirect resulting from the move into a DAB, making a revert impossible. Since then, My very best wishes, Paul Siebert, and myself all expressed the view that this was a mistake; ZScarpia expressed support, but it was still clearly not discussed and still seems to lack consensus. I request that it be reverted, at least until some consensus for the move / split can be demonstrated. When I said I would request that this be reverted, Nug essentially objected by demanding that we hold a straw poll before reverting them, but given that there was no discussion beforehand I don't think this is necessary; they must demonstrate consensus before a contested move or split, not after. --Aquillion (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Aquillion and Nug: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Aquillion clearly hasn't been following the discussion on the article talk page. There has been a long running dispute which has resulted an editor topic banned and numerous reports to WP:AE. The split was done during an open case at WP:AE, and I annouced the split to the admins there[75]. I sought to short circuit this spiral of conflict and the split resulted in the resolution of yet another AE case[76]. Aquillion appears more concerned with the application of WP:BOLD, which is a mere editing guideline, while the circumstance of this content dispute merited WP:IGNORE, which is policy. So far only Aquillion and Paul Siebert oppose this split, while MVBW says the "split looks like a reasonable compromise" and ZScarpia supports it too. --Nug (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• If, as it seems, Soviet gas vans existed, then the disambig page gas van is needed. Also, to modern people to whom the Holocaust and the purge under Stalin are going back into the past, "gas van" in ordinary current usage may also mean: van powered by gaseous fuel; in the USA, van powered by gasoline (= petrol) rather than by diesel; van delivering gas in cylinders or storage tanks; van driven by a man working for a body which supplies fuel gas by gas mains. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Anthony, your arguments look somewhat artificial. A primary meaning of "gas van" is this (to avoid possible bias here is a Duckduckgo search result). Other meanings of "gas van" actually refer to "gas car" or "gas truck". --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the existence of Soviet gas vans, the only (relatively) well documented case relates to the van that was used to incapacitate the victims before execution (similar to the case of gas van usage against non-Jewish Yugoslavs that was subjected to a detailed analysis here. That was probably even more brutal than what Nazi did (that procedure was tantamount to a double execution: the victims were de facto both gassed almost to death and then executed), and that mistreatment of victims deserves a discussion in the Great Purge article, but that was hardly a real gas van (similar to Nazi gas van).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose to move and to merge because I think Nazi gas vans is a notable subject that deserves its own (sub)page. However, the content about Soviet gas vans obviously does not belong to this page and therefore should be moved to the existing page gas van which should be used as a more general page for all gas vans, Soviet and Nazi (instead of being used as a disambig. or redirect) My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose split (that is to say, merge back); the inevitable result of this proposal is to create a WP:COATRACK on Soviet gas vans, which have very little coverage. If we must split, use Nazi gas vans as the primary meaning and redirect Gas van to it, as it is unquestionably the primary topic. Also note that a failure to reach a consensus in this RFC should result in the split being reversed (since it had no consensus or, for that matter, discussion to begin with.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you not comprehend the meaning of WP:COATRACK? It is inserting a tangential subject Soviet gas van into an article that draws attention away from the nominal subject of Nazi gas van. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose split per Aquillion: Nug's action, given the long ongoing discussions and many appeals to administrator intervention, is plainly disruptive. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per WP:COATRACK and opposition to the appearance of diminishing the Holocaust due to coatracking a Soviet gas van section to the Nazi gas van article. Soviet gas van is as distinct from Nazi gas van as British concentration camps are distinct from Nazi concentration camps. Apart from the obvious fact both coincidentally used vans, they are not related in any other way and were distinct in time, place and usage. It is clear from the sources that the Nazis independently invented their gas vans having had no knowledge of the existance of Soviet gas vans. As such Soviet gas van warrants a separate article. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we are dealing with a single case of usage of Soviet gas van (Berg's story), and that van(s) was, most likely, used for incapacitating the victims before execution (which makes that case probably even more brutal). Other cases are not supported by reliable secondary sources. The Berg's story would never get so much attention taken separately from Nazi gas vans, so it would be absolutely correct to mention it in the Gas van article (as a small section). This question has nothing in common with COATRACK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Soviet gas van can stand on its own merits, take it to AfD if not. Merging it into Nazi gas van only serves to diminish and distract from that topic, the very definition of WP:COATRACK. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. A small section that describes Berg's supervised usage of vans to suffocate victims, supplemented by the (attributed) assertion of Albats and Solzhenitsyn that gas vans were invented in the USSR would be in a full accordance with the article's style (that is a minority, but reliably published viewpoint). Since no other cases of gas van usage were described in reliable secondary sources, the story about a single case of gas van usage in the USSR hardly deserves a separate article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, a RS mentions Soviet gas vans were used in more than one location in the Soviet Union. It is a topic tangential to the topic of Nazi gas vans. A "See also" template can be used if you want to link to that tangential topic to Nazi gas vans. --Nug (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

These sources are either primary or not reliable. They will be removed soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources seems reliable enough. For example, according to a google translation of the Russian Wikipedia page[77], sources used in that article indicate this Russian language newspaper has won numerous awards including one “For professional excellence”, while the editor-in-chief is considered an “honoured journalist”. One of the features of the newspaper is that it brings in “historians and publicists from all over the CIS talk about important events”. Evidently Soviet gas vans is one of those topics covered by such a CIS historian. Nothing to indicate it is some kind of unreliable fringe publication. --Nug (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:WINRS and please note that the Russian Wikipedia page has been essentially written by the single purpose account 111seman[78].--Assayer (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Nug, these awards are local ones. This newspaper my no means meets "mainstream newspaper" criteria, which include a broad circulation and a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness, similar to WP, NYT, The Guardian, etc. As I already explained, its Alexa ranking is not available: it is a REALLY obscure web site. How can it be a mainstream newspaper? In addition, this material is op-ed: it does not reflect the editorial board's opinion, and even if it reflected, are the editors established experts in history? What are their credentials?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The split is the best solution to the extensive arguments which have been taking place all over Wikipedia on the topic of gas vans. It seems surprising, when editors had been claiming that the original article was solely about the Holocaust and that the special sourcing rules which applied to material on Poland in the Second World War should be applied to Soviet gas vans, that there should be so much support for a re-merge. I'm assuming that, if there is a re-merge, that those arguments will continue. It appears that editors couldn't bear to have material on Soviet gas vans in the original article, and they can't bear to have it in its own article either. I'm curious: at the top of the talkpage it says that this article is part of the Military History and Germany projects; also that Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions apply. How relevant does anyone think that is to something which happened in the Soviet Union in the 30s?     ←   ZScarpia   00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, I don't think splitting can be justified by a purely technical reason: to soften sourcing criteria. If that is the only reason, it is suspicipusly close to system gaming. Moreover, in reality, as a recent discussion of WP:V policy demonstrated, the sources that tell about everything else but Berg's story will be removed from the article in any event (local newspapers and primary sources are not acceptable in that context), whereas Albats, Kizny, Wheatcroft and few similar sources will stay anyway.

Just think about that again: the whole story about alleged usage of gas vans in the USSR (I mean the other cases than Berg's story) is based on a single secondary source: an op-ed article in a Crimean echo newspaper. Newspapers (especially op-ed materials) are not listed among reliable sources by our policy, and guidelines say that a decision about usage of newspapers depends on a context. "Crimean echo" is a local Ukrainian newspaper, the Alexa ranking of this site is not available. For comparison, I randomly picked a county in the state of New York, the rank of its local newspaper is 12,166. That means "Crimean echo" is not comparable even with an average US local paper. In addition, guidelines say that op-ed materials are reliable only for the opinion of the author, which deserves mention only when they are notable. Is Sokolov notable? I found no review on his books in Google Scholar or Jstor.org. No historian cited his works, we even don't know if he has a degree, and from which university. Most likely, he is a self-appointed historian. If we remove this source, Grigorenko's memoirs and other primary sources used by Sokolov will be removed too: otherwise that would be an original research. What will stay? Just a bunch of sources that re-tell a single tabloid article, and Kizny, who used the archival documents that tabloid article was based upon. All of them tell about Berg. Does it deserve a separate article? Obviously, no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul, I have two reasons for opposing a re-merge: the strife will continue and, organisationally, I think it would be better to have a brief, overarching article describing what a gas van is and their operating principles, then sub-articles going into more detail of their use by different regimes. The part of my comment which you have focused on is a description of some of the 'ruses' resorted to get rid of unwanted material. Perhaps 'gaming' is an apt expression for using the presence of a template used to enforce the use of better quality sources for content on Second World War Polish history for material which is actually about the Soviet Union in the 1930s?     ←   ZScarpia   21:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the problem with using "better quality sources" in an article about the SU in the 1930s? I don't really understand why even such a template is needed in the first place, because I think one should strive to use better quality sources anyway. Isn't the idea behind such a template less about the quality of the sources, but rather to spare us endless discussions about contentious material?--Assayer (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem with using "better quality sources", but why insist on merging the articles, if not to game the remedies intended for the Holocaust in Poland? --Nug (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Nug, if you agree that local newspaper publications and primary sources should be excluded per WP:REDFLAG, the whole Soviet gas van story reduces to the Berg's case and literally three short statements: one originates from the KP article, which was reproduced by several secondary sources, the second is Kizny's analysis of Golovkova'a data, and the last is Albats' and Solzhenitsyn's statement about invention of gas vans in the USSR. W cannot expect to have more materials in observable future, so the article will be short. Actually, if you agree with that, and you agree that Nazi gas van is a primary topic, I do not insist on merging the articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: Yours it would be better to have a brief, overarching article describing what a gas van is and their operating principles, then sub-articles going into more detail is totally wrong: we have absolutely no ideas about the design of the Soviet gas vans: how can we be sure a technical description of a Nazi gas van has even a remote relation to what Berg made? We even are not sure whether they were intended for killing of for incapacitation before execution. We literally know virtually nothing about them. Personally, I think (based on what I know about the Great Purge) that all those killings were very poorly organized from a technical and legal points of view. The NKVD staff had almost no opportunity to made needed technical preparations, and everything was just an improvisation. Most likely, they took an ordinary van, attached a rubber hose to the exhaust pipe and directed it to the cabin. They were cutthroats, not engineers.

Regarding getting rid of unwanted materials, these materials are unacceptable per our general policy and guidelines: the op-ed article in a local newspaper is not a reliable secondary source, that follows from the RSN discussion, and from the discussion on the policy talk page: "mainstream newspaper", according to all comments, means "newspapers having broad circulation and high reputation" (Crimean echo meets neither first nor second criteria), and op-ed materials are not secondary sources for statement of facts. And, accordingly, the primary sources discussed in that article should go too per NOR. That's it. These sources will be removed in any event (I just don't want to do that right now). Majority of other sources will stay, but duplicated sources will be removed (we are not obliged to cite every source about some subject, otherwise the article about EPR paradox would have grown enormously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul, we've come across two types of gas van: ones that used bottled carbon monoxide and ones that used the carbon monoxide in engine exhaust. Sources state that the Soviet version used engine exhaust while the Germans started with the former and moved towards the latter.

At the end of the day, it is a fact that claims have been made about the use of gas vans in the Soviet Union. While the contents of some sources may not be reliable for statements of fact, statements of fact may still be made ABOUT what those sources said. That means, as the extent of the haggling has shown, that it will be very difficult to entirely eliminate content about Soviet gas vans. If that content is moved to a separate article, it means that you can legitimately have a pristine article devoted to the euthanistic and genocidal use of gas vans by Nazi Germany. At some stage, the patience of the WP commmunity is going to become exhausted. When that happens, they will look around for who has perpetuated the dispute rather than produced solutions or made compromises.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ZScarpia, in the section below, FR proposed a very good approach: let's list all available sources, decide which sources we can select for writing the article, and then discuss the content. I listed all sources about Soviet gas van I am aware of. I propose you to join that discussion. The decision about merging, redirect etc should be done after the agreement will be achieved about the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposed renaming and move per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:ONEOTHER. Regardless if there is a sub-article or not, the use of gas vans by Nazi Germany is by any means the primary topic as reflected by the (scholarly) literature. That some literature devotes a couple of sentences to Soviet gas vans does not mean that this topic is of the same importance. The notion that such an article is needed in order not to diminish and distract from that topic, however, seems to be a case of WP:RGW. --Assayer (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course the presence of Soviet gas vans in the article is a distraction, you have yet to deliver on your promise to expand the German section but have been instead focused on removing text devoted to Soviet gas vans, to the point of advocating removing references to Soviet gas vans from the lead as they were not a part of Holocaust. Either the article is related to the Holocaust or not, which is it? If it is related to the Holocaust then why would you then be ambivalent about moving unrelated content to a separate article? --Nug (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The way this story is being described IS a distraction, but that will be fixed, because it is unacceptable to tell the same story several times under a pretext that several sources tell about it. In contrast, to tell that Isaj Berg used vans for gassing victims during Great Purge (a couple of sentences whould be enough), and based on that Albats and Solzhenitsyn asserted that gas vans were "invented" in the USSR, is by no mean a distraction. And, yes, Soviet gas vans should be removed from the lead because that was a minor incindent incomparable with scale of gas van usage by Nazi.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I was addressing my question to Assayer. Is Nazi gas vans a part of the Holocaust or not? If it is, why should unrelated events in 1936 be in this article? ---Nug (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a public resource, and everybody can respond. The Gas van article is devoted primarily to a killing machine (gas van). The fact that it was used during the Holocaust does not preclude a discussion of its real or perceived usage elsewhere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I am asking Assayer a question related to his vote comment, why are you attempting to answer on his behalf? --Nug (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

First, to clear up a possible misunderstanding: What is in your opinion distracting from which? Are you arguing, that the merging of both articles is a distraction from the topic of Nazi gas vans? Or that the topic of Soviet gas vans is thereby diminished, so that it needs a stand-alone article to fully address it? Second, in the lead according to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This also means that it does not suffice to simply expand the section on Nazi gas vans. Since, given the published reliable sources, Soviet gas vans are not important to the general subject, they need not to be mentioned in the lead. Third, gas vans played an important role in Action T4 and the Holocaust. Fourth, I agree that Soviet gas vans were not part of either events. However, some authors, reliable or not, want to draw a connection between them. That can be addressed, but in proportion to the prominence of these viewpoints in the published, reliable sources. Among these I do not count memoirs or publications of virtually unknown local historians in local newspapers. Fifth, I did not simply remove “text devoted to Soviet gas vans” but rewrote the section. Off-wiki I have prepared yet another version using the work by Tomasz Kizny. But I felt that certain issues had to be straightened out first. Sixth, due to unforeseen RL events I did not find the time to work on the German section, yet.--Assayer (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Just in passing... Oh no, Soviet gas vans are absolutely important to the general subject. Why? Because sources tell so, in particular the academic book by Albats. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, as I already explained elsewhere, Sokolov, and therefore, all primary sources cited by him should definitely be removed per WP:NEWSORG, WP:REDFLAG. The latter says that claims "that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions" prompt extra cautions, and "this is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." As we all know, one of the arguments in support of usage of questionable sources was that KGB ostensibly destroyed or classified important documents. That claim is non-falsifiable: no matter how many sources will be available in future, it will still be possible to claim there is impossible to establish truth because unknown amount of key documents was destroyed, and we have to use various rumors. That is typical conspiracy.

Therefore, the article should tell only about the Berg's story, and two different groups of sources should be used: Kizny (not Halabuda, who just reproduces Kizny) and the sources that are based on the KP article. That is sufficient for a small section in this article, and the "Soviet gas van" article should be deleted.

The (attributed) opinion of Albats that connects Nazi and Soviet gas van also belongs to this article. In my opinion, it is a total bullshit, but my opinion is not important here. It is reliably published, it is definitely a minority view, but we have to include it (with attribution), because otherwise an impression will be created that Wikipedia has a pro-Stilinist bias. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, a lot of WP pages actually have a significant pro-Soviet or neo-Stalinist bias. I think the best way forward is the one you talked about with El_C. Please (a) decide what your preferred version of something would be, (b) suggest it on article talk page and wait for response, (c) if others do not accept your version or a compromise can not be easily found, post an RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support: the split / disambig was done without discussion and was disruptive. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

So apparently per WP:REVENGE, you support the essentially deleting Soviet gas van and turning it into a redirect, but what would be your position had there been a discussion (which is occuring now in any case)? What is your rationale for wanting to insert a section about a topic of the Great purge into a topic of the Holocaust? --Nug (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per OP. François Robere (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move, support split The split was a good idea to defuse the issue with having to keep two separate gas van topics in the same article. Since some editors clearly want to axe the content on the Soviet gas vans not just from a separate article, but also from the main gas van article, they way forward is WP:AFD for Soviet gas vans. --Pudeo (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Move or split, unless it is not justified that the Soviet gas was run by Nazis as well (excuse me for the sarcasm, but this issue seems to be overargued, just keep it simple)(KIENGIR (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC))
• Oppose merge, support split -- reading long discussions above, one can see repeated voicing of concerns about Soviet gas vans topic distracting from Nazi usage of gas vans in the Holocaust. It is easy to predict that such arguments are likely continue in future, with editors wasting countless hours trying to determine an appropriate balance between those topics. It is also clear that Soviet and Nazi usage of gas vans were completely autonomous from each other, with no direct connections, meaning that there is no inherent need to have the two topics in same article. Therefore splitting is a completely reasonable solution.--Staberinde (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge. As it is, the article is about gas vans in general, the paragraphs on their use by the Nazi is not developed enough to be its own article. If it ever becomes more developed, then it'll be suitable to have its own Nazi gas vans article, with a brief summary and "see also" in the general gas vans article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhoeus (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vote count

Is the following more or less correct? François Robere (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

For:

1. Aquillion
2. Darouet
3. Assayer
4. K.e.coffman
5. François Robere
6. KIENGIR
7. Typhoeus

Against:

1. MVBW
2. Nug
3. ZScarpia
4. Pudeo
5. Staberinde

• KIENGIR, Support Move or split: looks like support for merging or splitting.
• Typhoeus: "As it is, the article is about gas vans in general, the paragraphs on their use by the Nazi is not developed enough to be its own article." Really?

Since the closure and decision about the result was made by Steel1943, it would be best to ask him or her how consensus was judged.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: See above. François Robere (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: As I stated in my closing statement (and even attempted to clarify even further in this edit), I did not make an assessment of consensus on any "merge" or "split" votes. The discussion above was created as a move request, and "merge" and "split" are not part of the move process, but rather the merging and/or splitting. Long story short, again, I did not see consensus to move the page based on comments specifically pertaining to moving the page, and thus I closed the request based on the move votes. (The discussion was strongly turning into a WP:WRONGFORUM ("Venue inappropriate (e.g., a file hosted on Commons, category or redirect at AFD, or discussions that the chosen venue is unable to address)") issue since WP:RM is equipped to handle page moves, not splits or merges.) However, per the discussion above, I do acknowledge that figuring out what needs to be done next is a controversial issue, and if no one else does, I am willing to help formulate a WP:RFC discussion for this if need be. Please let me know either way as I am aware that the discussion on this topic is not over yet. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Pinging Aquillion as OP. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To make it clear again, so I support rename to Gas van, or splitting to article to have Nazi gas van and Soviet Gas van.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC))

• I think that everything needs to be moved back to Gas van immediately, since it was moved without discussion; a no-consensus outcome defaults to status quo, which is everything on Gas van. The idea that someone could move an article with no discussion, edit the redirect, and then claim it could remain in that state after a no-consensus RFC is obviously absurd an an attempt to abuse WP:FAIT editing. I'm opening a WP:ANI discussion immediately. --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Given closing as "no consensus" to move (which seems to be correct closing), I removed the content about Soviet gas vans (which obviously belongs to another page) and moved it to correct page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• You will have to obtain a consensus to split in order to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note Sorry, but Aquillion is right. The title was boldly moved. That was reverted. An RM that attempts to establish consensus for splitting is now due. Not the other way around of moving it back! El_C 23:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I am, admittedly, playing catchup, but this is really confusing. Splitting was undertaken, but since it was opposed, per WP:ONUS, the pages should have been moved back and a move request should have commenced, with consensus to split being the burden. Am I making sense here? I wish I had known about this earlier, I could have spared everyone a lot of time and energy. El_C 23:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In other words, ONUS, demands defaulting back to the longstanding text (status quo ante) while the matter is being discussed. Surely, that is a concept all participants can agree on? El_C 23:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC

That has been my take from the beginning, yes, and I was baffled when @Anthony Appleyard: closed my request to revert an undiscussed move based on @Nug:'s objection. I had a big WP:ANI post all ready to go before I saw your comment, since I think this is something that absolutely has to be hammered out - at the very least, moving, editing the redirect, and then resisting attempts to revert the move shouldn't result in a WP:FAIT situation where the original move stands even in the absence of a consensus supporting it. --Aquillion (talk)

Well, my understanding was that the impetus for the split was in order that the Soviet gas van content would not be subjected to the more stringent sourcing requirements outlined in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations — but now that ARCA seemed to have clarified against holding the Soviet gas van content to these requirements (in contrast to consensus among admins at AE, which felt it ought to), there would be far less motivation for the split. Because, either way, the sourcing requirements are not going to apply (though, again, as mentioned below, feel free to query the Committee further about this particular dispute). El_C 00:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added and removed this comment — but I'm still not positive my skimming of the ARCA was right. The Arbitrators seem to be speaking about: When a broad article has sections that relate to these topics, the restriction applies to only the relevant sections. Should the conclusion be drawn that the Soviet gas van section is not such a relevant section, it being outside the restriction's scope? My sense is to answer in the affirmative. But participants may wish to query the two arbitrators who commented (or the Committee as a whole) about this, just to be sure. El_C 00:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I self-reverted just to be safe. However, this is really ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What is quite ridiculous, My very best wishes, is claiming a bold change suddenly amounts to the status quo ante. El_C 00:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What exactly do you guys want? There are different options. (a) Move everything back (prior to the split by Nug). That would be restoring "status quo". I do not object. (b) Keep content as it was before my edits today? Is that what you suggest? (c) Something else? Please say. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course, you have no reason to object now. You got exactly what you wanted. Soviet gas van content is not going to be subjected to the more stringent sourcing requirements. But humility in victory is a virtue, My very best wishes. And me thinks thou doth protests too much. El_C 01:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not "win" anything, and I do not think this has anything to do with ARCA. But you did not answer my question. @Aquillion. What exactly do you suggest? There are two options: (a) to split the content (I do not mind) or (b) to move and merge everything back (I also do not mind, but then we need an admin to move the page) My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

But if failing to split the content would result in the sourcing requirements being applied to the Soviet gas van content — you still wouldn't mind? El_C 01:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC?

Just following up on my RfC inquiry above. I'm thinking the best option at this point would be to create an opening statement, and put it above the first comment (the vote count) in the above #Vote count section. I can try to formulate a statement if need be, given that I closed the RM discussion. Everyone okay with that, and/or does anyone have an idea how to word such an opening statement and would like to take a crack at it? Steel1943 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind is the best idea. This is a bit more nuanced, despite what some participants are willing to admit. El_C 01:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

At any rate, I've moved the page back to the status quo ante. A move request to split the article may now commence. El_C 01:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about what? I do not think we need any RfC here. El_C suggested below. whether the notability of the Soviet gas van phenomenon can be attributed to that of the Nazi gas van? That sounds strange, and hardly a reasonable question for any RfC... And the answer is "no" simply because none of the sources say this directly. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If the Soviet gas van phenomenon became notable in the context of the Nazi gas van one (in writings comparing the two), then, no, it isn't strange question to pose. I realize you disagree, and perhaps you are correct in your assessment. But revoking the debate itself is a step too far, I think. El_C 01:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you El_C for moving everything back! This is not my preferred solution, but arguably an OK solution in terms of content. We could not keep everything just as it was. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. I thought I already did, but I've been a bit absent-minded today! El_C 01:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Basically, there was an underlying reason for the split (I, myself, deemed it an elegant solution, at the time) — but that split was objected to. But the underlying reason for the split no longer seems to be acute, either. I'm not sure there will as potent motivation to have the article split now. But who knows? Stranger things and all. El_C 01:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, so ... after a few minutes, my idea is to reopen the RM as an RfC to allow the scope of the discussion to be wider and start the "RfC timer" on the day the RM was opened so that the RfC closes 30 days after the initial RM was opened. But ... it looks as though El C enacted a resolution already. Either way ... yeah, after giving it though, I have no idea how is word an RfC, and I think the original RM proposer's statement would be the best starting point while allowing all the comments thus far in the RM to be clearly applicable to the RfC since it works all still be contained in the same section. Steel1943 (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think your close of no consensus was valid, but it ought to have been a no consensus to split. I retract and have struckthrough my suggestion to launch another move request. That may be redundant, at this point. A split may be proposed in, say, a few months. El_C 01:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That said, if somehow there is overwhelming consensus to launch the split move request sooner rather than later, than I suppose we can do that. But again, I suspect much of the motivation behind the move to split would be moot now. El_C 02:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for doing the fixes you did (restored the previous status quo). IMO, what you did could have been done in the first place given how the RM was started in the first place, but I had to close the RM based on what I saw in the discussion, especially considering the discussion had gone on a couple of weeks. The only concern at this point I now feel the need to update my close to "moot" based on that fix, but then I'd be concerned that the participants in the discussion did not have their voices heard for the discussion which they participated, which is not the case in the least. Either way, all looks good to me at this point given the current situation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)