Talk:Execution van

Untitled

How can the vans be involved with selling organs? It was my understanding that lethal injection destroys organs. --smb2a

Only one source has been provided, ergo... content within this article must taken with a pinch of salt. Scarian^Talk 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mobile death vehicles were also used by the Nazi's in Germany http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gassing.html

They're involved because they don't administer lethal chemicals until after they get the guts (if at all). They use anesthesia first, rip out the parts, then dispose of the body. But reportedly, the vans are used for the convenience of the weathly, not for any operational execution reason. It means the rich can fly in, go straight from the airport and be prepped for surgery just as the "criminal" is murdered, and the organs are fresh. Then they can fly out of the country without being seen. 71.248.125.214 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that that is just a bad dream. It sounds like some of the stories concerning poor Indian kids selling their organs (or getting thieved of them?), but those might just be urban myths as well? I haven't seen reputable news coverage or references concerning the matter, so, for the time being, I will presume these are urban legends.Mfhulskemper (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

More references - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-14-death-van_x.htm , http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=115788 if someone wants to add details. I'm too tired right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.202.80 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact drug used?

I added a mark to the claim that the drug used is sodium pentobarbital. As far as I know, publicly available sources only indicate that the first drug is among the barbiturate family of drugs, not necessarily sodium pentobarbital. I've also seen articles which claim sodium thiopental is used. I believe the actual formula is a secret.

Mobile gas chambers in WWII

The Nazis used mobile gas chambers ("Gaswagen"), eg. trucks whose exhaust fumes or pure Carbon monoxide were used to kill the entrapped passengers.

• Astrid Ley: Der Beginn des NS-Krankenmords in Brandenburg an der Havel. Zur Bedeutung der 'Brandenburger Probetötung' für die 'Aktion T4'.' In: Zeitschrift für Geschichtsforschung 58(2010), pp. 321-331
• Eugen Kogon et al. (Hrsg.): Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Eine Dokumentation. Fischer Tb, Frankfurt 1986, ISBN 3-596-24353-X, p. 63 / s. a. nizkor: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/chelmno/gas-wagons/ftp.py?camps/chelmno/gas-wagons//sonderdruck-04.txt )
• Mathias Beer: Gaswagen. Von der ‚Euthanasie‘ zum Genozid. In: Günther Morsch, Bertrand Perz: Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-940938-99-2, S. 157.--87.178.126.145 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mobile execution equipment in the USA

"1986: Legislation was enacted that made lethal injection the mode of execution. The law also stipulated that persons sentenced to death prior to the new law's enactment would have the choice of choosing their mode of execution - either hanging or lethal injection. In response to the new law, the Department of Correction rebuilt the gallows and purchased a mobile lethal injection chamber": http://www.doc.delaware.gov/deathrow/history.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.13.96.103 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Great Purge

The Soviets invented execution vans for the Great Purge in 1936. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:F96F:8599:A5BE:E436 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

Oh yes. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111019034145/http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/chinas_criminal_justice_system.pdf to http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/chinas_criminal_justice_system.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

HELP! Edit history shows many UNADDRESSED, Severe Censorship issues

The edit history shows a lot of deletions with misleading descriptions, that are often blatantly inappropriate and clear policy violations. Look at this wholesale source removal for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/891807014

Another recent edit deletes a bunch of stuff saying it’s uncited and yet the deletion deletes the citation. another large chunk about president in the former Soviet union is removed because it’s basically because it’s not complementary. WTAF?

I find I can’t even revert such edits with undo. Help? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your questions do not seem pertinent to this article, the edit you cite is to a template talk page; if they are pertinent to this article, please point out the edits with this article that are problematic. If your questions involve other articles, you should use the talk pages associated with those articles. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

They are. Looks like a 4 got chopped off the end of the diff URL. Sorry. Fixed. I am talking about this article. Source removal is followed by content removal due to supposed (contrived) lack of sourcing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/950600107. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The removal of a source for it being dead is bad practice. But interestingly...searching for those articles under the name given...turns up nothing. For example, one of the sources was "Chinas mobile death fleet" from the Asia times, but a google search turned up nothing. Now, I did find one of the other removed sources, and have re-added it to the article as the Amnesty International report. With regards to the organ trafficking accusation, the sourcing there was very poor, but I have gone and found some better sourcing on the issue which I will add. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much. Appreciate the help and edits. "Interesting" indeed ; I looked further. It's clear to me now that the Asia Times source was not fabricated. Multiple searches for those articles turned up nothing you say? What do you mean? Did you not see it was widely cited? That's far from the case for me - Google "turned up nothing"! I see that https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03068370701791899 cites "14. Antoaneta Bezlova, ‘China's Mobile Death Fleet’, Asia Times, 21 July 2006." https://escholarship.org/content/qt5s8975kk/qt5s8975kk.pdf also cites it. So I think it's appropriate to put it back along with
... Activists claim that the bodies are quickly [[cremation|cremated]], which makes it impossible for family members to determine if organs have in fact been removed.<ref name="asiatimes"/>.<br/> I can dig in more to the multiple instances wherein "Source removal is followed by content removal due to supposed (contrived) lack of sourcing."
And I am still concerned that 'I find I can’t even revert such edits with undo'. It seems like it's crippled; these are (or at least were) not ambiguous undos overlapping other edits. Hence renewing my request for help. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, it appears the original Asia Times source has been scrubbed. However, we can use some of the other sources that cited it, that'll work. As for the undo function not working, it can be a bit finnicky at times, especially when its not the last edit made. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Good edits. "Scrubbed"? From atimes.com? The Lifekey23 and 142.116.193.249 accounts together scrubbed the citations and content from the article and falsely labeled it OR. The need to undo here has passed. I'm still concerned that undo is crippled, but it seems unlikely I'll get it addressed here; the improvements here mean the examples of crippling here are now less evident. But the claim that the ongoing conversation was just about content was patently false.50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeated phrase

The sentence "Human-rights groups predict that the execution rate in China will increase because of mobile capital punishment" is repeated and obsolete, there is no reason to keep it on the lead. Also, the addition of "China has one of the highest execution rates in the world." makes no sense, since this is an article about "Execution van" and not Capital punishment in China. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop both are directly related, the Execution Van is about a method for killing people quickly which is partially how China has such a high execution rate. It is all related. Vallee01 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 This article is about Execution Van, not Capital punishment in China. They are related, hence the hyperlink to that page on the first paragraph. --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The Execution Van is a sub article on the killing of people by the Chinese government. It can be considered a sub article on Capital Punishment in China. Vallee01 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, then we should remove the phrase and hyperlink to it. BunnyyHop (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs a touch-up

This article is poorly-worded, poorly-sourced, and doesn't even start with a basic description of what an 'execution van' is. We should either clean it up or merge it with Gas van. 67.166.78.190 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Wtf

This is quite possibly the shittiest article I've ever seen on wikipedia. It has bugger-all sources, breaks NPOV throughout, it's incredible that this shit even exists. 2A02:C7C:46FA:5A00:39DC:504E:5E4C:DA46 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does this exist?

This is a 3 paragraph article saying China has capital punishment. There is literally nothing note worthy about this. The USA uses lethal injections daily, but there is no special "USA Death Chambers" article. 23.28.148.2 (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, the US doesn't use lethal injections "daily", not even close; the number should be zero, but Capital punishment in the United States#Execution statistics does provide numbers closer to zero than to daily. You're right, it's something of a dumb article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)