Talk:Mečislovas Gedvilas

Notability

he was leader of lithunaia, that makes him notable right ?

He was a colaborationist with occupational forces, not a real leader.Lokyz (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lies, he was a true socialist leader of Lithuania. Nefesf9 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox. This page is to discuss how to improve the article. Leave your politics at the door and discuss what the reliable sources say. Additional off-topic comments will be removed per WP:TPG. Active Banana (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ref' provided.Lokyz (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources need to be reliable with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Not just any olde website. Active Banana (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an scientific institution, and all the articles are peer reviewed. Please, take your time and don't make any hasty decisions, before reading this Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania.Lokyz (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And I think one revert of removal of WP:RS would be helpfull, to avoid WP:POV pushing. Thank you in advance.Lokyz (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeking third party input Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Genocide_and_Resistance_Research_Centre_of_Lithuania_as_source_to_identify_Me.C4.8Dislovas_Gedvilas_as_a_Soviet_collaborator Active Banana (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article has become very POV. It gives undue weight to Mečislovas Gedvilas's work in "collaborating" with the Soviets, and does not explain the economic benefits which came with Socialism under his rule, and his success as a leader. I don't think "collaborate" is a suitable word to use here, because it is VERY POV, and doesnt tell us anything neutral about him. Nefesf9 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

I see that the fact of collaboration has been attributed "[...] has been identified by the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania as someone who collaborated with occupying Soviet forces." ([1]), but I doubt it is a good way to attribute this fact... It's like saying that "Vidkun Quisling and Philippe Pétain were identified by [some historian] as someone who collaborated with occupying Nazi forces."... Such facts were common knowledge long before historians wrote articles about them; it does seem wrong to write as if such collaborators had to be "identified". And the article in question does not "identify" Gedlvilas as collaborator - it uses him as an obvious example of collaborator, while discussing typical types of collaboration (for example, "signing documents concerning deportations"). Thus, if we really want to attribute these facts, we should write something more similar to "Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania [or just "Vytautas Tininis"] has used Gedvilas as an example of collaborator"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncontested and non-controversial claims do not need to be attributed by inline citations. This claim has one source and that source clearly has a POV that needs to be made clear to the reader. If you can find and add multiple other reliable sources that support the same claims, then the attribution can go. See the discussion at the reliable sources notice board.Active Banana (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit silly. Definition of collaborator: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force (Merriam-Webster). He willingly became Prime Minister of the Soviet government (an enemy of Lithuania). Renata (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have seen that discussion - I even participated in it to some extent ([2]). What am I supposed to see there? I see that Nefesf9 claims the source is unreliable (or "[n]ot neutral") and hardly anyone (with exception of yourself) takes his claim seriously, just like hardly anyone took the related AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania) seriously.

Now, about "source clearly has a POV that needs to be made clear to the reader"... Well, every source has a POV. By itself, that simply means that it says something. A random chemistry textbook has a POV, as it says something about chemistry. It doesn't mean that we have to write "Textbook X identifies Ag as the symbol for silver.", nor must we look for more sources to support a more straightforward statement.

In short, you seem to claim that there is some controversy related to Gedvilas being a collaborator. I see no reason to think that it is so. So, why don't you give us some reliable sources that would say that there is a controversy, or that Gedvilas was not a collaborator..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)