Talk:Latvia: Difference between revisions

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Latvia B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. [show] August 21, 2004, November 18, 2004, May 4, 2005, August 21, 2005, November 18, 2005, May 4, 2006, August 21, 2006, November 18, 2006, November 18, 2007, November 18, 2008, and November 18, 2009

Archives

/Archive 1

Is there a need to give "Tēvzemei and Brīvībai" as a motto, if Latvia doesn't have official motto ? It's just that it seems that "Dievs, svētī Latviju!" is also used as motto and I'd say it's more popular than Tēvzemei un Brīvībai. -- Xil/talk 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think any of these "mottos" are broadly used in Latvia. It could also be "Sarauj, Latvija".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.105.20 (talk • contribs)

Please, be serious :) these mottos are supposed to be official, they don't need to have everyday use, I'm talking about use in speeches and letters. Honestly I think that maybe there shouldn't be any motto at all in the infobox as there is no official motto of state---- Xil/talk 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this motto quite official since it is carved on the monument of freedom. There was large competition for this motto and if not mistaken Karlis Baumanis (could be horibly wrong) has preposed couple of mottos with this 2 words in different writting styles. And this one was selected representing the start of new era in latvian history driven by Jaunlatviesi (New Latvians). So I think this is very appropriate and official. On the the other hand Saruj Latvian is common chear. Could be added to Latvian Sports =D. --Cliff (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kārlis yes, but Skalbe. The inscription on the Freedom Monument is as official as "unofficial" can get, after all, it is carved in stone. "Sarauj' Latvija!" is definitely more for hockey fans. :-) —PētersV (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baumanis was the author of "Dievs, svētī Latviju", note that Monument of Freedom was erected in 1935 well after the contry gained indepenence whereas "Dievs, svētī Latviju" has been aroun since the 19th century (well before country gained independence). "Tēvzemei un Brīvībai" is used almost only on the monument (acctualy, Cliff, Kārlis Skalbe didn't have anything to do with Young Latvians, maybe you've mixed it up with the anthem ?). Wouldn't it be more convinient to put none in the infobox as this gets very close to WP:OR ? ~~Xil...sist! 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No motto might be better, but as long as there is one, I have a question on English version: "fatherland" vs. "motherland" -- isn't the first, well, almost nazi ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.62.130 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi? Get real, this term is just as widely used (in english language) as "motherland", BESIDES- tevzemei directly translates "fatherland". RonDivine (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added this:
A British citizen was condemned to 5 years in prison because he urinated on a statue, the detention didn't respect the human rights, and the trial was full of irregularities. Two Spanish citizens are now in prision waiting for a trial because they stole two little flags valued in 10$ each one. In this detention the tourist were aimed at the head by police officers guns, they could be condemned for 6 to 9 years in prison.
I removed it for folowing reasons: There is no references, to my knoledge the insignificance of given crimes and the punishments are largely exaggerated - In both cases the tourists mistreated important Latvian symbols protected by Law, in first case Britons were fined not jailed, I had never heard anything about Spanish tourists, but I found similar case, which I guess is the one described here (seven spanish tourists tearing flags from poles - they were released not sentenced for 6-9 years). And the "statue" is 42 meters high, while flags valued 10$ each ought to be nolrmal sized flags - neither of these is as small as the text implies. Summing up - if tourists commit crimes (hooliganism, harming Latvian flag, theft), they are punished by law as anyone in Latvia would. It is not a risk to every tourist. Also this is not that significant to addit to country's article ---- Xil/talk 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very good article on this topic in Baltic Outlook (Airbaltic in-flight magazine) written as far as I remember by ambassador of UK in Latvia. In that article the number of tourists was compared to the number of cases involving tourist for the past year, and how many of those involved British citizen and what cases were about. Most British cases were about anti-social behaviour and only a few (<10) were involving risk for tourists (e.g. unauthorised credit card transaction at POS in doggy strip clubs/bars/night clubs). This article proved with numbers that it is very safe to travel to Latvia as long as you don't get drunk and behave unresponsively. Those who want to find trouble always will =D. Trying to get article from archives cause very nice small sub-topic article could be written. --Cliff (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Justice here (unfortunately this information is available only in Latvian) has statistics on religions, slightly different compered to those given in this article, however they state that they lack some data. Someone who knows something about religions could sumarise these data for the article (Ministry of Justice is more reliable source), unfortunately I don't know anything abot these matters so I can't tell if luterans are seperate from german luterans or could be simply both conted as luterans or how significant the missing data is ---- Xil/talk 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this article is NOT missing citations and/or footnotes! Please feel free to improve the article Latvia by introducing specific fact tags in the text or raise any questions on the discussion page. Tagging the whole article that is in a general good condition, that has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version, is not acceptable. Therefor please remove the general tag ASAP and in the future please do not misuse the tags on WP. Thanks--Termer 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user ^talk has not engaged in a discussion, explaining why is it necessary to tag an article that is in a good condition, that has all relevant Bibliography and References available. I'm going to remove the tags for second time. Please do not replace the tags without reaching a consensus first here on the discussion page. --Termer 01:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it was nighttime here. As for why is it necessary, I believe it's obvious that an article of this size and importance needs much more inline citations and references to be verifiable. A general further reading or bibliography section without footnotes helps only as far as creating an impression of some credibility. I must also note that the Wikipedia CD selection project is a relatively minor affair, that it does not subject articles to a particularly rigorous review, and that it does not mean that the articles that pass should be held to lesser quality standards than others. I will restore the tags, and ask you once more not to remove them, and to stop making unsubstantiated accusations. Reinis^talk 08:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this kind of approach, editing WP by labeling articles in a good condition that have refs and sources available, is ignorant and disruptive. Please feel free to reference any commonly known facts in this article with more specific sources if you think it's necessary but please do not go fuhrer with the pattern of misusing tagging on WP. I hereby call up all responsible editors to remove the unnecessary tag from the article Latvia. Thanks! --Termer 21:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books in the Bibliography section are rare; the article is not even A-Class; cf. with Lithuania, which is a GA. The bottom line is that an article can not be in a good condition if its accuracy is not verifiable. The point of the tags is to alert editors that it needs attention. Reinis^talk 08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the references in a while, but I'm sure, Reinis, that you're aware that there is a dearth of widely accessible sources with anything about the Baltics other than where they are located. I've probably spent at least $1,000 on references over the last year or two, on everything from the history of eastern central Europe to the forming of the current frozen conflict zone (Transnistria, South Ossetia,...) to Soviet publications explaining how they were forced to invade because the Baltics were militarily allying themselves against the Soviets who had only ever offered a hand of friendship. All "rare." But such is the nature of scholarship on those topics.

     I do agree that Lithuania is in better shape, however, some of that is also a reflection of less "anti-nationalist activism" there on the part of some Wikipedia editors. There's less incentive to work on something when you know you will be dragged into worthless discussions regarding the merits of official Soviet pre-Perestroika historiography. And this is by no means a phenomenon linked only to the Baltics:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29_Occupation_of_Baltic_states (current)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Occupation_of_Latvia
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lithuania#.22Occupation.22
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Estonia#.22Occupation.22

and elsewhere

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/22 (occupation of Romania)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet_occupation_denialism (deleted article moved to user space for development)

...as some representative samples. But back to the topic of tagging.

    Quality wise, I do agree that the page needs work in general. It's a sad state of affairs when an article about Latvia has as its first illustration its first invaders (the Crusaders). And, taking your tagging of the Rainis article, which I had expanded from its original "stub" as an example, taken in the proper (constructive) context, tags can help in focusing editor attention on deficiencies—at least when the editors are all on the same "side"(!), which I believe to be the case here. :-)

    I should note that, going back to your point of verifiability, my own projects specifically focus on, among other things, bringing "rare" materials to a far wider audience, the latest being Rumpeters' Soviet Aggression Against The Baltic States. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the specific paragraphs where there really is no excuse to not have references, and removed the banner from the top. I'd move the {{citations missing}} banner to the History section, but it seems to overlap with the country infobox. I think the way to proceed there would be to add footnotes with page numbers or quotes from the books. I'll try to get around to adding some myself. The overall goal should probably be to achieve a parity with Lithuania. Reinis^talk 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reini, did you not go a bit delete happy on the "Other" category of links? For example, Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies would be important to keep, right off the top of the list. Even our own web site (Latvians.com), which one could argue is personal, has copious reference materials not found anywhere else on the Internet--for example, there's no place else to find a M.I.T. study on the Latvians under Soviet rule. Nor does it sell, advertise, or promote anything. I read the same guidelines you did regarding links and did not come up with the same conclusion regarding deletion. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article in its present state lacks factual description of what happened to its economy and culture under Soviet rule. I am not a specialist on the subject, but I feel that there were both positive and negative changes. No positive changes are currently mentioned. In 1920-ies and 1930-ies Latvia was a rural underdeveloped country being ruled by a dictator abusing human rights and many Latvians had to go abroad to seek better life. It is a well-established fact, or is it not? On the other hand, in 1990 or so I visited Riga myself and was really impressed by Latvian level of living, which was higher than in most other USSR republics at the time. Those changes should be described in this article in an objective manner. ENGLISH SPEAKING LATVIANS, IT IS YOUR CHALLENGE, FIRST OF ALL. There is no way denying the Soviet occupation, same as it is no good to think that Russians = Soviets. It certainly were not Russians who ruled in the USSR, it were Communists and as we all know they do not recognize any nationalities, they claim to be internationalists. --Leonid Dzhepko 08:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see what you consider well established fact we consider well established soviet propoganda myth - Generally Latvians believe that Latvia was not only not underdeveloped, but highly developed and Ulmanis' authoritorian regime addressed political and economical crisis (which likely could have been solved in another way, still for many Latvians Ulmanis is a folk hero not a tyrant). Soviet Union didn't develop Latvia it merely saved what was left after WWII and then simply moved forward in time, introducing same technolgies it did in the rest of the USSR, therefore we Latvians indeed believe that Soviet Union rather somewhat staled Latvia's development and we would have done much better without it. -- Xil...sist! 10:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about beliefs, not facts again, aren't you? Was it not thanks to Ulmanis' policy that Latvia fell an easy prey to Soviets? A dictator is a dictator, and violation of basic human rights is violation of human rights, whatever nice excuses or good causes they are wrapped into. I think Latvian people accepted Soviet regime without much struggle, because most of them must have thought that one regime was not much worse than the other. Still, whatever changes there were during Soviet rule (as well as during Ulmanis rule), they should nevertheless be depicted in an encyclopedia. I would like to see Latvia a country with predictable past (at least), unlike the USSR. No good replacing Soviet-time propaganda myths with modern Latvian propaganda myths. We Wikipedians should be above politicking. Let politians play their dirty games. Do you agree? Please describe facts. Just naked facts, and let people think themselves. --Leonid Dzhepko 06:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I appreciate your reply, Xil. --Leonid Dzhepko 06:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that in 1990, the Baltic states' standard of living was considerably ahead of most of the rest of USSR. However, in 1939, the Baltic states' standard of living was also considerably ahead of most of the USSR, so this comparison can not establish a "positive change" under the Soviet occupation. Another, much starker, comparison would be comparison of the Baltic states with the unoccupied European states, such as Finland and Sweden. In 1939, Estonia's GDP per capita and life expectancy at birth were higher than these indicators in Finland. In 1989, I think you know what had happened to Finland, and where the Baltic states still were.

That having been said, I believe the whole "balance positive with negative" approach is unsuitable for encyclopædic approach, because it presupposes judgment, and judgment is detrimental to neutrality. We should represent facts as they're understood by the scholars, not try to figure out which facts can be considered positive and which facts negative. 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 06:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid, as a professional historian, I can say that there are no such thing as "naked facts" that speak for themselves, regardless of context and presentation. All articles are a conscious choice by the authors of what to include or exclude, thereby skewing the readers' ability to "think for themselves". Due to the incompleteness of the historical record and the limits of human fallibility, it is actually impossible to present all the "facts" in a comprehensive, objective manner.

As for your assertion that Latvia was "underdeveloped" in the interwar period, please tell me: by what standards are you measuring development? By certain indicators, Latvia in the late 1930s was at a developmental level comparable to Nordic countries (which, admittedly, were not doing spectacularly well, then either). For example, meat consumption per capita in Latvia in 1939 was a hair-raising 85 kg per annum, far greater than in other carnivorous nations like the UK (64 kg) or the USA (62 kg). Foreign observers visiting Latvia in the 1920s and 1930s were usually impressed by how the country rebuilt from the destruction of WWI, and was undergoing a process of rapid, albeit sometimes uneven modernisation. EWP Newman's Britain and the Baltics (1930), Latvia: Country and People (1938) by the Times correspondent ROC Urch, and EC Davies's A Wayfarer in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (2nd ed, 1938), are in my opinion fairly typical portrayals by foreign observers. Note that these books also contain critical observations, not just praise.

That much of the large-scale industry in Latvia was not revived following WWI should also come as no surprise. Many of the factories had been evacuated to the Russian interior, never to return. Furthermore, as with the situation after 1991, many of these industries served a large internal market that no longer existed following the breakup of the Empire. That the country's economy should instead concentrate on light industry (textiles, consumer goods) and agriculture and forestry is thus logical, and not necessarily evidence of backwardness. This is not to say that everything was done right. The étatism and state capitalism that started before, but accelerated under the Ulmanis régime had the consequences of a long-term decline in the standard of living, following and initial upswing due to massive state investment (see the conclusions of economic historian Aizsilnieks). The nationalisation of large parts of the economy not only made things less efficient, it also made things easier for Nazi Germany to manipulate Latvia's foreign trade through the clearing system, as well as doing half the job for the Soviets already before the occupation in 1940.

Finally, you say "I think Latvian people accepted Soviet regime without much struggle, because most of them must have thought that one regime was not much worse than the other." When I look at the well-known photos of people in Riga in 1940 carrying banners in favour of joining the USSR (and the pictures of those greeting the troops of Nazi Germany a year later), I always wonder what they were really thinking, and why they felt they were doing what they did. I don't have any answers to these questions, and I have certainly thought about it a great deal, both professionally and privately. It's reassuring that you, on the other hand, know exactly what people were thinking and feeling in the past. But do you have reliable, verifiable sources to back up your hypotheses? A photo is indeed a "naked fact", but it is certainly not the whole picture... — Zalktis 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed that it is a popular belief mostly because I didn't check facts and this isn't necessary my opinion. Yet part of these popular beliefs are based on facts (such as that Latvia was not underdeveloped). As for Latvians giving up too easily - even if we forget that Russia is and was the world's largest country with more resources then Latvia could ever dream of, one man is not a warrior, people need leadership to efectively fight, but Ulmanis chosed not to fight. Yet there was resistence, see Forest Brothers for exsample. Besides this article should contain brief overview of the history and, in my humble opinion, this article's history section is already too long, Latvian SSR should be expanded instead ---- Xil...sist! 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed responses, guys. I am not an expert in the field and do not want to make any assertions, therefore I have just asked these questions (which hang on the minds of (some) people in the FSU countries) on the discussion page, so I beg you not to ask me to provide any facts. On the contrary, I am happy to hear them from you as more knowledgeable. Anyway it is up to every writer of Wikipedia and his conscience. And, of course, it is a very good idea to expand the Latvian SSR. --Leonid Dzhepko 11:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that expert on Latvian history but I know some things about estonian history and expect that latvian bears some resemblance. Estonia was used as an Example State of Communism so there were probably some good or somewhat good things in there in personal perspective of USSR residents. For example looking through the old documents of Linen factory in my home village I noticed funny things. The production of full products sometimes exceeded 300% of raw material. Take 1kg of linen and make 3kg of clothes. At the same time people tended to steal a lot from the factory. Mainly because there were some Annual Plan based on how much raw materials must be used. If the factory failed to use the material some inspectors came and were quite angry. Nobody really counted the products you made just the fact that all raw materials were used. Same also went for gasoline. There was some amount of gasoline which truck driver had to use, if he failed to use it all then he was probably not doing enough work and should be punished. If he wasted all the gas and asked for more he even got a medal for being an exemplary worker. :) So people just took the stuff they couldn't use for work to themselves and shared it with friends. Also currently old people still cry for soviet times because welfare used to be better at soviet times. Not sure if it is just a "back at my time" syndrome or fact.

As Estonia was used as example state most people didn't suffer from lack of life quality. Things you needed for life were always available. Ofcourse the selection of goods and stuff like that was rather limited.

On the other hand at country level the system relied on heavy funding from Russia. The 300% production was hoax, the efficiency was probably close to 10% in reality. It didn't matter how efficient the factory was, it had to look like it worked and is successful, but in reality it was just a moneysink which really produced no results. And the whole stuff was just a circus to make people to believe that these are the high standards people live by in soviet union. The employees were more like actors than real factory workers.

If anyone can make sense of my story and can find sources to back that up I think it could be added to the articles. If anyone has more questions about that stuff feel free to drop me a line. I have some historic annual reports of factories in my home town, but you can't really use them as sources as this is original research. Suva Чего? 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox it says:

• Declared 18 November 1918
• Proclaimed 4 May 1990

Is there any reason why this shouldn't be vice versa given that 18 November in Latvia is known as day of "proclamation" and on 4 May "declaration of restoration" was made ? -- Xil...sist! 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the poster here reproduced is a racist Propaganda "White" Russian poster and should not be used in the WP article on the alleged role of the Latvians in the Russian Revolution which requires the use of scholarly references. The claim is currently being expressed that the Russians were the victims, in part, of the Latvians - that the Latvians are in part to blame for the Russian Revolution, together with Chinese Riflemen, and the Jews. I ask that those interested in Latvian history come over and express their view as to the role, or responsibility - if any - of Latvians for the Russian Revolution. Thank you. --Ludvikus 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and support the concept of WP:VERIFY and the refs certainly could be improved, but some of the tagging goes way over the top - one of the tags for example asks for a citation that Latvia is in the EU - equivalent to asking for verification that Texas is in the USA. This is just frivolous and doesn't help the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, and removed that specific tag (before even seeing your comment here). The others are ridiculous too. Someone with an ax to grind did a hatchet job on this article. Zweifel (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cat has been added again, despite the mediation decision last year. In accordance with this mediation, I have removed the category, again. — Zalktis (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recognised it. Bardhylius (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be problem here, but please note, that in the current map Latvia itself has been showed slightly wrong - the eastern border is not where it should be, perhaps you could correct it if you make map ? ~~Xil...sist! 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry I have already corrected it. But please inform me more on the corrections due to happen and I will remake the map. Bardhylius (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's nothing tragic it just forms a bit of wrong angle, never mind ~~Xil...sist! 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About middle ages, the article doesn't shows that the "christian missionaries" were also, catholic missionaries.Agre22 (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

There wasn't any other kind of Christianity yet. Lutheranism came later via the Swedes. The rest of the context should make it clear that it's Rome, not Byzantium. —PētersV (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French version of the name has been added to the intro. Now I can just about see the point in including the German version of the name given historical German minorities but there's really no reason to include the French name rather than say the Spanish or Italian names. Equally given a higher proportion of Russian speakers in the country that language has greater claim to be mentioned in the intro. I'm removing the German and French versions from the intro, to leave the English and native (Latvian) names, however I believe we should agree on a clear policy on this, if one doesn't already exist. Valenciano (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Russian name must be there too, since Russian is the native language of 1/3 of the population. Aaker (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't - we can't put in names in every language spoken in Latvia, only English name, its variants (German was first included as such) and official name in Latvian should be included ~~Xil (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not suggested that we should "put in names in every language spoken in Latvia". The Russian name must be there to recognise a very important linguistic minority. I know that there's a lot of Russophobic sentiments in Latvia, but I can not see how the exclusions of one third of the population could make things better. It would be interesting to know why you don't think Russian should be there? Please, don't say it's due to official policy because Wikipedia is not following discriminatory, governmental policies. Aaker (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the old discrimination saw. Let's see, Russian military "retired" in Latvia rather return home and were allowed to legally claim their Soviet era houses/apartments. Let's see, all retired are paid a pension whether they were Soviet era "settlers" or not. Let's see, complaining to the Russian embassy of discrimination because your apartment landlord won't give you a parking spot for your second Mercedes. Please educate yourself on the facts of the situation before you jump on the Russian foreign ministry's evil Latvia position. Latvia treats Russians better than Russia treats repatriating Russians.

   What matters is the Latvian name, not German, not Russian. It's not about "Russophobia." The Russian minority borne of Soviet settlement policies can choose to be Latvian nationals or not. Once they make that choice—and the majority have—their homeland is Latvija. —PētersV (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russophobic sentiments in Latvia are largely exgenerated by certaint politicians, you may of course choose to believe them, but Wikipedia is not a place where to stand up for them - that's soapboxing. I allready explained practical reasons why, but I can elaborate: you should be aware that there is also a lot of anti-linguistic sentiments in Wikipedia in general, usualy going along lines "this is ENGLISH Wikipedia" (and only few names in other languages are to be tollerated) and mind that this overcrowds article - if you can justify inclusion of Russian name, why not French and German as historical variant spellings in English and Livonian as native language and why should members of other linguistic minoroties in Latvia not consider adding their language ? ~~Xil (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people are actually quite funny. In one sentence you argue that there is no such thing as Russophobia and in the following sentence you start complaining about the Russians and how bad they are. Well, why not the French and German names? Naturally because there are no significant German and Francophone minorities. However, I wouldn't mind if we included, let's say the Livonian and German names too, due of their historical significance in Latvia. Two or three languages are certainly not too many. Aaker (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there was no such thing (there always are some people who have some kind of phobia, not only in Latvia) and didn't complain about Russians being bad. Pēters is from USA what has his opinion to do with Russophobia in Latvia ? You obviously don't want to listen as you are constantly repeating the same over and over and give no good reason to include other languages - given that majority of people here and AFAIK in whole Wikipedia believe that use of forgein names in lead should be limited the reason should be far more prominent than those you are talking about e.g. Latvian names are official (as stated in Independence Declaration) ~~Xil (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't care much about Peter's ethnicity but I've never accused him for being Russophobic, however it's quite obvious from his user page that he has some connection to Latvia (off topic by the way). Isn't being the mother tongue of about 30% of the population (and the most widely known language in country) a good reason for inclusion? I don't know where you've found statistics about what the Wikipedia community thinks about names in introductions but what they think isn't really an argument for the case. In the article about Switzerland there are (except for the English one) SEVEN different names mentioned in the introduction (Schweiz, Schwyz, Schwiiz, Suisse, Svizzera, Svizra, Confoederatio Helvetica). I agree, it's quite a lot and perhaps too many, but can you please explain why two names, in the languages which are used and spoken by virtually everybody in the country, would be so disturbing? Aaker (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We were speking about Russophobia in Latvia not weather Latvians are Russophobic and what did you mean by saying that Russians are bad contradicts statement that there is no Russophobia, if not to point that saying that Russians are bad is Russophobic ? Switzerland has four official languages, there are no names other than in official languages and English in that article ~~Xil (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Excuse me, Aaker, where and when did anyone say, per "You people are actually quite funny. In one sentence you argue that there is no such thing as Russophobia and in the following sentence you start complaining about the Russians and how bad they are", that Russians are evil? You were the one accusing the Latvian government of Russophobia in its policy.

   But since you bring up the notion of good and bad, let's go down that route. If it hadn't been for Hitler's call home ahead of the eventual Soviet invasion of the Baltics per his agreement with Stalin, there would be a sizable German minority in Latvia as well. (Well, if Stalin wouldn't have killed/deported them.) That does not mean we'd also include "Lettland" for Latvia. There is something to be said for not insisting that the name of a country be also represented in its article lead in the language of an external power that conquered all or parts of it (German, Swedish, Polish, Russian,...), and, particularly, powers (Soviet Union) that decimated its inhabitants. Not that there were many Latvians left alive after Peter the Great, either. This is the English WP. —PētersV (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Xil points out, the Swiss example is somewhat specious, as the names for given Switzerland are all those in the country's official languages (or dialects thereof), while the Latin version is used in certain official contexts, so as not to favour any of one of the particular official languages. Note the article on Finland only gives the names in Finnish and Swedish (i.e. the country's two official languages), despite the fact that, for example, Russian is an officially-recognised minority language in that country. Imagine if we gave the name of Canada in all the Native American languages, let alone those spoken by all the other minorities in that country! The fact is (humiliating as it may seem for many Russophones in Latvia) that currently Latvian is the sole official language of Latvia. Hence, for consistency's sake the only logical thing is to give the Latvian version only in the introduction of the article in English Wikipedia. If you want the other names for this country in various languages, nothing prevents you from clicking on the interwiki links. When Russian becomes an/the official language of Latvia, the Wikipedia article will be updated accordingly. Согласно? However, if we start adding names of the country in minority languages based on some sort of "entitlement" or "fairness" criteria, the best candidates are Livonian (a nearly extinct autochthonous community), Yiddish (the language of a significant historic community destroyed as a result of genocide), and Romani (the Roma are currently the most marginalised and discriminated against historic minority in the country).—Zalktis (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: English is "used and spoken by virtually everybody in the country" (to borrow your phrase) in Sweden, and most Swedes are proud of this fact. So why shouldn't we argue for "(English: Sweden)" to be given in the intro for sv:Sverige as well? —Zalktis (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if I have understood you correctly, in absence of Wikipedia guidelines, we most follow the official local policies, no matter how important a minority is. Personally, I find this quite unfair and coward (since Wikipedia are not supposed to be ran by governments) but as the majority of you folks seem to think differently, let's keep it this way. Nevertheless, it would perhaps be a good idea to bring this discussion to the village well and develop "a clear policy on this".
In the Swedish case, I wouldn't mind including the English name (or any other language for that matter) if 30 per cent of the Swedish population had this language as mother tongue. As for the Latvian language policy, yes I think it's discriminating but this is not a general discussion. Aaker (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In absence of Wikipedia guidelines created by broad consensus, it seems best to look at examples from other articles, where the practice for European countries generally seems to favour presenting the names in official languages only. We can probably all agree that the official language version should be there, but it soon devolves to a potentially infected battle of your POV vs my POV vs her POV vs their POV etc. when we get to debate what other languages should be included. Many Latvians find it deeply hurtful that their country is often portrayed by outsiders (incorrectly) as a place "where everyone knows Russian anyway". Almost 20 years since the re-emergence of Latvia from the USSR made the teaching of Russian to everyone in schools no longer mandatory, this is far from being the case any more. At the same time, it is true that many Russians in Latvia would prefer not to use an archaic, obscure language spoken by just 2m people worldwide, when their own is such a culturally rich and respected world language. It would be like forcing the English speak to Welsh — who would stand for that?! The potential for edit wars abounds... My guess, though, is that if you're seeking a consensus, then even editors not possible to dismiss as part of some "ethnofascist Baltic cabal" (or some of the similar terms bandied about by certain banned editors once upon a time) will likely agree that the clearest and most encyclopaedic option is to give only the official language version. Germany doesn't give "(Turkish: Almanya)", does it? Nor does Spain list "(Catalan: Espanya)". Does including "(Russian: Латвия)" really give added-value to the English-language reader of Wikipedia, or is it more a political statement? You admit that you think the current government policy of Latvia is discriminatory; I personally think the same about France's minority policy, such as flatly refusing to sign or ratify the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (which, by contrast, Latvia has), but I nevertheless don't lobby for Breton, Basque, and Arabic to be included in the intro for that article as a result. —Zalktis (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Aaker, have you been to Latvia? Just as a point of reference, some years ago now the worldwide convention of Russian journalists abroad convened in Latvia, complete with delegates from the Duma, to descend en masse to lay Latvia's discriminatory oppressive practices open to the world. What happenned? They all had a good time at the Jūrmala seaside resort and even Duma deputies who actually came to Latvia stated that the situation was not at all as was painted by activists and official Russian statements. Don't take reports of the oppression of Russians at face value, in practice, Russia cares nothing for its ex-Soviet diaspora. Russian will not be included in the intro for you to make a political statement. —PētersV (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Yes I've been to Latvia, Riga (a very nice city by the way). Why is it relevant for the discussion? And why is the corrupt Russian government's POV relevant? You're right, they don't care. Does that imply that nobody else should care either? Aaker (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riga city official statistics (2008): Latvians 42.3%, Russians 41.7%, Belorussians 4.3%, Ukraininans 3.9%. In Latvia Russian is statistically the second language, as Latvians 59.2%, but Russians 28.0%, Belorussians 3.7%, Ukrainians 2.5% LR CENTRALA STATISTICAS PARVALDEBogomolov.PL (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the statistics linked to are for: "Resident Population by Ethnicity and by Region, City and District at the Beginning of the Year", absolutely nothing mentioned about languages. Come again with statistics on the subject. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you, dear Philaweb, that Russian speaking community statistics may be larger of simple ethnic Russians share (a lot of Belorussians, Ukrainians, Poles have Russian as mother tongue). So I support your criticism - Russian speaking community share possibly can reach 1/3 of Latvia population total, but Latvian official statistics provides ethnicities share only, I don't have more accurate data. Do you have better? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not place words in my mouth, Bogomolov, I have only rendered an objective observation. I do not know of any statistics on language skills in Latvia, but I am sure you may be surprised how many people have English skills. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let us stay with present statistics, because ethnicity is so close to the mother tongue (if we are talking about Latvians or Russians, you see). May be you will be surprised how many ethnic Latvians have Russian skills. But is native English speakers share large as Russian speakers? Is English speaking ethnic minority share so large as a Russian one? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion in general reminds me of trying to determine what cheek of the buttocks is most comfortable when seated. Most comfortable is sitting on both. Most people in Latvia has language skills in two languages, many has language skills in three and four languages. A person in Latvia with skills only in one language will find daily life uncomfortable. And by the way... Latvian is the official language of Latvia.

When it comes to language policies on Wikipedia articles, there is a very handy column to the left called languages. There, it is possible to check out the names in different languages. If the article does not exist in the language of interest - be bold and create it! After all, this is Wikipedia and not a political mudsling. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language wikipedia, that's why the English name is in the lead, so the number of English speakers in Latvia is irrelevant to the discussion. Valenciano (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. We have official ethnicities share data, even collegue Philaweb does not claim Russian minority are not Russian speaking, so use 28% as Russian mother tongue minority share is possible.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier discussions above. Russian does not have official status in Latvia, so in line with naming policy in other countries e.g. Spain, USA, Sweden, we do not include that in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not not discussing of official status of Russian or any other language - we know Latvian is a single official language. So, using your logics, we don't need in Wiki every name variants in not official languages. I provided the lingustic minority share - not less not more. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) If one wishes to do a NPOV and informative addition of names of Latvia in other languages, Lettland (German) would come first, as that is where the terms Letts and Lettish come from. We should then also include Swedish, Polish, and probably Lithuanian and possibly Estonian in addition to Russian--which, BTW, is just a Cyrillic transliteration of the Latvian. Just having the Latvian is the simplest and the best. We don't have "Estados Unidos (Spanish)" in the WP article on the United States. —PētersV (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be encyclopedic approach to add a chapter about Latvia name origins and foreign languages name versions (and origins if different).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the page have the old type of EU country maps?

In which time zone do you live?This is the current EU map.

"17,4% are Soviet time occupants and their descendants"

Such thinly veiled, xenophobic hatred has no place anywhere. People have the inalienable right to live wherever they wish. RZimmerwald (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it. No one lived "where they wanted to" under the Soviet Union. "Removed offensive demonization of Russian immigrants"? Some of the best Latvians are ethnic Russians who arrived not of their own accord. Some of the worst Latvians trace their Latvian blood for generations. What I think of any of them is based on what they choose to do as individuals. Moreover, what I think of them--and it's nothing that matches your reprehensible charges of xenophobic hatred--has nothing to do with relating the facts of the situation, that is, how they got to be there in the first place. —PētersV (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true only if Latgalian and Samogitian are the dialects of Latvian and Lithuanian respectively, but it is possible to find different opinions in this question. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian and Lithuanian are the primary variants/languages, so that's what we stick with. Such nuances will be lost on 99.999% of the readers and are best left to articles on the languages themselves. PētersV (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but this claim has a well defined form, so usual reader will be sure it is 100% true, but there are elder Samogitians with pure Samogitian (not a dialect as modern Samogitians use in a common life).Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia and Lithuania are not exactly know to 99.99% of the readers either. Except for the people from that small area, saprotiet, vai nee. So your argument is nothing but squelching a legitimate point. No, Changali and their valoda, and Samogitians and their language are representing the Baltic branch of the Indo-European family, peoples and languages, as Dutch and Swedish are Germanic peoples / languages, and Poles and Czechs are Slavic peoples /languages – you get my point, or do I need to be more explicit? Your post Peeters, remains very typical of the sveshtautieshu attitude you Latvians have on all peoples that are Latvian through citizenry and geography, but minority to the hoch-Latvians.

So, as long as only Latvian-surnamed posters (and- arguably, the Latvian government) control the Latvia Wiki entry, those posts will lack factual evidence and veracity. Let us cut through the chase - to find more about my position on Latvia related issues, go down to item 18 in this talk and read my post under Latvian Collaborators responsible for killing of Latvian Jews, in History of Latvian Jews.

Mikhail Drabkin (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)mikhail_drabkin@yahoo.com[reply]

Sir,

It appears that only posts by persons with Latvian surnames, under Latvian-surnamed moderation, are accepted for inclusion. To be clear, I am of Jewish ethnicity. Truth is fact multiplied by faith, and as such, all truths are subject to revision over time.

1. For instance, it is factually incorrect not to consider Latvia a member of the Russian speaking space. I am a native speaker of Latvian, and can attests, without ambiguity, that Latvia is a Russian speaking country (I practice Latvian, Russian, German and the present language). As a matter of fact, most Latvians I spoke to in 2001, had a Russian accent (and to Zalkitis - they are not Russians, or from Latgale).

2. I further object to the absence of a "Controversial and present issue" category in the post. Such are many in each historical epoch paragraphed.

For instance, Latvia is not a country that supports ethnic minorities; the non-ethnically Latvian citizens are considered foreign to Latvians. The issue of treatment of Latvian citizens of non-Latvian ethnicity (not to speak of non-citizens, as mentioned above), is amply displayed in the universe of the words "cittautieshi" or "sveshtautieshi" - this is how citizens of a non-Latvian ethnicity are described in the Latvian language. In translation, it means "of other peoples", "foreign peoples". Thus, a Latvian citizen of, say Polish ethnicity, is a "cittautietis". To translate this category into English, one would have to use "foreigners". And that, mind you, is about citizens of Latvia. The same words – “cittautieshi”, "sveshtautieshi" is used to describe Polish, British, US, Indian nationals, with the same meaning: foreigners.

3. This page is based on a compilation of convenient, Latvian-selected facts; Latvian present and past citizenry includes peoples of many ethnicities; as such their voice should be heard - it will make some good for the non-cittautieshi that can reflect. Latvian population includes hundreds of thousands of Russians that have been living in Latvia since the Soviet times, and that are marginalized and excluded POLITICALLY, culturally (and economically) by the Latvian ruling elites, EU and NATO official opinion notwithstanding - they surely should be heard here.

4. Furthermore, this page must be proven not to be a de-facto propaganda piece of the Government of Latvia. Until proven, it should be stated as such at least on the following grounds: only the Latvian government can approve the use of the Latvian Heraldic symbols (flag, coat of arms, etc) for non-governmental use. I wonder if the moderators will get a permission when they will include the "Controversial and present issue" category that is subject to open debate. Thus, this page could be presently subject to censorship by Latvian officials.

I hereby request editing privileges for the this Latvia page and expect an expeditious confirmation.

Sincerely,

Mikhail Drabkin (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)mikhail_drabkin@yahoo.com[reply]

In reverse order:

   4. Propaganda piece of the government of Latvia? I'm sorry, but trust me, I know some government folk and none of them are active on this page, I know for a fact that folk with official ties have been told NOT to participate on Wikipedia.

   3. Russophones--and let's make this clear that isn't about Russians--participate in public dialog through NGOs and political party activism, if they are non-citizens. The MAJORITY are now citizens. No one is excluded, no one is marginalized, the non-citizen population are doing well for themselves. Those that are not share all the same economic challenges as citizens. Loss of artificial privilege during the days of the SSR is not oppression, it is fairness. When the Russian foreign media descended on Latvia for their global conference, prepared to skewer Latvia, they all came away having a good time at Jurmala and stating that things were NOT as the Duma and Russian activists had portrayed. There is a lot of propaganda going on, but it is not the Latvian government that is the perpetrator.

   2: You are obviously unaware of Latvia having a long tradition of multiculturalism. Your use of what words in English approximate Latvian words thereby claiming everyone not Latvian is a foreigner belies your POV. "Cittautietis" (singular, masculine) is someone of another nation (that is, a people or ethnicity) than the speaker, no more, no less. To contend that means all non-Latvian ethnicities are "foreigners" is your propaganda painting that Latvians are so xenophobic it's part of the language and is an inappropriate translation. "Foreigner" is "ārzemnieks."

   1: Russia is not an official language of Latvia. Latvia is no more an official Russian speaking space than Brooklyn, New York. And trust me, there's a lot more Russian on the streets in Brooklyn than in Riga. As for "Russian" accents, I'm sorry if my relatives speak a heavier Latvian than I do, mine being a holdover from the generation that fled during the Soviet occuption, still the light, lilting Latvian of the hills of Vidzeme, while my Latvian relatives speak with (what I consider) a bit of a Russian accent, learned, no doubt, from growing up in Siberia.

I respectfully suggest that your perspective on Latvia is not balanced, is blackened by Russian propaganda regarding Latvia's oppression of their Russophone population, and is fueled by conspiracy theories that the Latvian government is censoring Wikipedia.

   My parents arrived at their new home in exile with a couple of wooden suitcases. They learned English in the DP camps in Germany, they worked to be productive contributors to society, later citizens, in their new country--ah, did I mention, NOT of their choice. After nearly twenty years of independence, anyone who is still a non-citizen in Latvia is so by personal choice, not by nefarious governmental conspiratorial exclusion. Open your eyes.

   Finally, I have spoken to folks, Russian and Latvian, visiting every year and more since independence. Even just 9 months after independence, my mother returning to see her family for the first time in HALF A CENTURY--can you even comprehend that?--I had no problem getting around Riga communicating with cabbies and car park attendants who "only" spoke Russian, myself "only" speaking Latvian. What makes a good Latvian is a willingness to communicate, dedication to making a life for themselves in Latvia and to the betterment of Latvia--not just themselves. That spirit is not born of someone's ethnic background, it is born of their character.

   Those who speak of polarization and marginalization in Latvia today are those who derive their political strength from perpetuating the weakness of their constituency, posing as their constituency's only saviour. That political tactic is nothing new, I only have to check the daily news in New York to see and hear the same. PetersV       TALK 04:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your comments:

I agree with your definition of what makes a good Latvian and with your insight into elites exploiting weaknesses - be it fear of anti-Semitism propagated by my tautieshi from the Jewish elites, of the fear of the awakening Russian bear getting ready to claw Baltics – by the “Latvija - latvieshiem”, among others in the Latvian establishment. But in Latvia, to be a good Latvian, you need to be an ethnic Latvian – and you know it.

However, for you to pass judgment on the strength and the implied deep roots of multiculturalism in Latvia is like asking a man form a deep South to decide if racism finally gave way to harmony - it is really not your call.

Between my father spending his life since 1920 in Tukums, Riiga, serving in the Latvian Army in 1939-1940, the Riiga ghetto and Kaiservald, and post war Soviet Latvia, and my mother born in Latvia, 1924, evacuation to Kirov (Vyatka, Russia) back to Riiga, and myself living in Riiga 1947-1975, I have much more hands-and-fist on experience with Latvian ‘multiculturalism” than you and your parents. And we all speak Latvian without a Russian accent. No matter, even if a Jew wanted to assimilate (as my cousin did – he graduated from the 49-th Latvian High School in Riiga) we remained cit/sveshtautieshi to the elites. Yes, we had our little world where we lived together in peace and harmony - but I always felt as a foreigner in Latvia. So, I speak from plenty of practical experience. And it is up to minorities to evaluate the quality of the multiculturalism, not for the hoch-Latvians (if you know German). When left to your own devices, without Baltic Germans, without the Russian crown, Tsar or Commissar, Latvian self-awareness flourished in the 22 years between the wars, Jewish pogroms and killings ensued. Now, another 20 years of multiculturalism, and SS-Waffen veterans march on Briivibas iela.

My point is, there really is no tradition of official (from those in power) welcome of minorities in free Latvia, unless you equate such (and multiculturalism) with living along other peoples (Germans, Poles, Russians, Jews) due to circumstances before independence. What I see, as Latvia becomes more authentic, there is LESS, not more tolerance of non-Latvians. Does not “Chemodan, vokzal, poyezd” - suitcase, station, train – a popular slogan inviting Russians to leave speak for itself – not in favor of the long history of multiculturalism. That part of Latvian history is WIP, and it should be here on the Wiki page.

1. Did you equate a language space with an official language? {And of course, Brighton Beach is a Russian language space, part of the Russian Diaspora, as Kalamazoo was (is) part of the Latvian language space and Latvian Diaspora} Latvia is part of the Russian language space - this should be on the Wiki page.

2. I think I made myself clear of what I think about Latvian multiculturalism and who really should judge it – not the majority for sure. Trust me – you have a blind spot. In so far as the meaning of specific words is concerned, I left Latvia in 1975, and I have not heard “aarzemnieks” ever – perhaps because there were very few to none at that time. Aarzemes – yes. To make things clear to you, I have in my library perhaps a 150 books in Latvian my parents brought from Riiga in 1979, and subscribed to Latvian (LSSR) magazines for many years

3. Let me see a minority represented and editing this section. You and I will not agree on this one, and your facts are not my facts. Russian media in Juurmala – tell me it was not during the Juurmala International song festival… What do you expect – this is the Latvian Riviera, with villas of the Russian oligarchs – surely this is not a sign that the Russian minority is not marginalized and excluded POLITICALLY, culturally (and economically) by the Latvian ruling elites (forget about the Jews).

4. Don’ t you need the permission of the Latvian government to use the flag and coat of arms on a Web site? But if you say you know government folks – I trust you. I met Vaira Vike-Freiberga in 2001 in the Presidential villa in Jaundubulti, but we did not discuss this matter as Wiki was not yet available and there was this “love fest” between the official Latvian Jewish Holocaust Survivor gathering and Latvia – Latvia needed Jewish power to support the entry into NATO and EU.

About your barbs re: conspiracy theory, etc – just because one ridicules it, it does not mean there are no conspiracies. You do not believe that the economic meltdown just happened, do you? Or - closer to home - that Bernard Medoff decided to tell the truth all of a sudden? However, I will leave it to a momentary lapse of judgment on your part to accuse me of spinning a conspiracy theory. Try to put something I suggest onto the LATVIA Wiki page, and you will find out quickly if the Latvian Government will let you keep the coat of arms on the page.

Your plea about your parents 50 years not being in Sigulda or Valmiera, Gaizinkalns and all – yes, it must be very painful. But why not? I knew many Latvian families whose foreign relatives visited during the Soviet times prior to 1975, not to speak of – prior to 1989. But we Jews considered most of the Latvian Diaspora populated by ex-SS Waffen legionnaires. As I am sure you considered most Jews being Bolshevik killing Comissars, getting their due in 1941, in Rumbuli and Bikernieki.

Who is the moderator of the LATVIA Wiki page?

Be well, PetersVMikhail Drabkin (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)mikhail_drabkin@yahoo.com[reply]

We are all moderators. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your original point 2 -- I'd say it's *very* telling that in your seek for Things That Are Wrong With Latvian Treatment Of Foreigners, you have to resort to complaining about the words used to refer to those alien people. If there was anything more serious going on -- say, regular ethnically motivated large-scale fights, or perhaps some real, measureable discriminatory policies -- you would not need to pick on the language.

Estonian language has been referring to this kind of immigrants as 'muulased' for more than two decades now. The word derives from 'muu', meaning 'other', but it also happens to be onomapoeic for cow noise (English: Moo!). This might amuse some jokers, perhaps even TV pranksters, but nobody in his right mind would claim that 'Otherian' is a bigoted slur equating Soviet immigrants to cows. It would be just silly, even if you're not familiar with how word construction works in Estonian. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your point 3 -- it's important to understand how identity politics works. In a modern, Western, civilised society, there's the ideal that people should not be judged by their lot in life over which they had no control, but by the strength of their character. It's common for modern societies to celebrate diversity, and -- although it's hard for societies to really accept --, we live in an era where people of various ethnic, religious, linguistic and so on groups can be proud of what they are. There's no point in being ashamed of ethnicity or sexual orientation -- and constructive pride is all about overcoming such useless shame. Thus, people of all such kinds of groups, by way of productive pride in their identity, are getting more courageous to speak out, to publically identify with these groups.

However, being a Soviet-era immigrant from the poorer regions of Soviet Union to the considerably richer Baltic region is not something one can really be proud of. It is does not show a strength of character; even worse, such an immigration is to be considered illegal under strict reading of the relevant laws and treaties. While the Baltic states have effectively pardoned such immigration, and allowed the immigrants and their families to stay on after the occupation ended, neither the fact of beign a Soviet immigrant, nor a one-time allegiance to the long-defunct Soviet state can be valid sources of constructive pride. That's why it's no wonder almost nobody is seriously claiming to represent Soviet people. There's no conspiracy; there's no marginalisation of Soviet people -- it is just that Homo Soveticus is not an identity one can draw constructive pride from.

People who might have fallen into that category tend to adopt another identity, not marred with the sin of illegal immigration, not marred with the sin of expulging Baltic families from their homes, and draw their constructive pride from that. As Pēters has pointed out, Russian people in Latvia are far from being politically marginal -- as are people of various other ethnic origins, both Russophone and others. But just because they're identifying themselves as Russian -- which is an ethnic category -- rather than Soviets -- which is a category of a failed ideology bent on World Revolution --, you shouldn't think that there's ethnic marginalisation going on in Latvian public sphere. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Drabkin, a word of advice. Your edits were reverted primarily because you do not stick to the Wikipedia format, i.e. no signatures in article space. Furthermore, stricken text in the article space should be avoided - either you delete or add text. I added a welcoming text to your talk page, please familiarize yourself with some of the articles linked to. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the practical suggestions, much apprecaite it !Mikhail Drabkin (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of available official sources show "Motto of Latvia". --Kikos (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Category:States and territories established in 1991 a few times, and an editor has removed it. This category applies to any state or territory that was established or the first time in 1991 and to any state that regained its independence in 1991, which Latvia did. The category can coexist on the page with Category:States and territories established in 1918, since both clearly apply in this case. Thanks. Whether the date 1990 (self-declaration) or 1991 (recognition) is used is debatable. Either is fine with me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the category as stated (established in) unfortunately indicates there was one Latvia in 1918 and another Latvia in 1991, similarly, to accounts of de facto and de jure independence as part of the post-Soviet era, as SSR, then de facto, then de jure also indicates one Latvia in 1918 and another in 1990/1991. Nothing was "established" in 1990/1991. Both templates do not clearly apply. (And in the cases of all three Baltic states, all took steps to protect and continue their sovereignty regardless of territorial events, and in all cases sovereign power was transitioned back to local authorities.) I don't want to appear to split hairs, but it is fundamental that all three Baltic States were established once, and once only. That they are separate and not continuous has been the (unsupported by the facts) position of the current Russian government, hence the need for accuracy. PetersV       TALK 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The categories apply to both dates for all other countries that have similar situations. It's fine if you want this state to be the odd-man out, but it does create an inconsistency in categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'all other countries' that have similar situations? Which countries exactly? The Latvian consulate general in NY never closed between 1944-1991, the same applies to Estonia and Lithuania whose diplomats remained in the Diplomatic list representing their states that were established between 1918-1920. Therefore adding the 1991 establishment category for those 3 countries makes sense exactly how? What state exactly was established in 1991 once for example the Republic of Latvia sent a goodwill message to the moon on July 13, 1969 among the 73 other countries around the world?--Termer (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick by browsing the categories. There are several dozen countries in history that were established in year X, then occupied later on, and then "re-established" as independent in year Y, but between year X and Y they maintained a government, were recognized by some countries, etc. (Obviously, by stating that there are others with similar circumstances I did not mean that there were other countries that sent goodwill messages to the moon in 1969. I was speaking on a broad level of specificity.) As I said, I don't really care if this one is the odd-man out, so I'm not terribly interested in expanding the debate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

established in year X, then occupied later on, and then "re-established" as independent in year Y. Following that logic most of the countries in Europe and not only would have been "re-established" as independent in 1945. So it's going to be interesting if Category:States_and_territories_established_in_1945 is going to be expanded considerably in the future?--Termer (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; most in fact are already categorized in the 1945 or 1946 category. The common difference for the WWII case is that there are often articles about the different incarnations of the various countries, like the French Fourth Republic, Second Hungarian Republic, etc. For the reasons mentioned above, Latvia again is kind of an odd-man out in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unlike French Fourth Republic and Second Hungarian Republic there is no source speaking of Second Latvian Republic or Latvian Second Republic. The independence of Latvia was restored on the Doctrine of State Continuity. Like for example Kingdom of Norway after WWII Category:States and territories established in 1905 not in 1945. --Termer (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said Latvia was a bit of an odd-man out in this regard. Though of course not unique, as I've also pointed out. (Incidentally, if you're interested, you may want to know that there is a lot of information in WP that simply says things to the effect of "Latvia gained statehood in 1991" with no further hair splitting and no indication that 1918 might be the more correct date. It's rife throughout WP; see, e.g., List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. It may be worth correcting some of these if you're interested in consistency.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and Denmark was occupied in WWII, too - why nobody correct their infoboxes Establishment 1945? Latvias Establishment was in 1918, but in 1991 - restoring of independence (like Norway and Denmark in 1945). And this list - so, it seems that its author was some uneducated person - discussion about 1991 cant be serious --Riharcc (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Regarding analagous et al. including withdrawn comments. I'm not here to push "POV", I'm simply stating the facts. Because all three Baltic States demonstrate (recognized and legally observed) continuity, they were all established only once, and each is one, and only one, incarnation. Hence can only be established once--no Second (fill in your choice of Baltic) Republics. My thanks for the pointers and advice on gaining statehood, et al. appearing elsehere in WP. (And there was no need to remove your comment, as I said, I'm not pushing POV and there's nothing about your edits that implies POV pushing, so there's always the opportunity for discussion.) PetersV       TALK 20:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated a considerably earlier infobox version regarding independence dates and with appropriate footnotes. For anyone feeling wailing and gnashing of teeth coming on regarding "Sovereignty territorially restored" please do not change it, it is the most factually accurate description of the event. PetersV       TALK 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peteris, you are perfectly correct (and using many adjectives to illustrate a simple point). Simply "restored" would do the trick - not trying to insult the intelligence of the educated or making matters too complicated for average Joe. Lettonica (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority of Latvian people can speak fluent Russian, can it be considered a vehicular language there ? For your information, I'm not Russian and I'm not even proficient in Russian.Mitch1981 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mitch. A reasonable question. No, Russian was lingua franca only as long as it was forced upon the population as being such. Scholastically, English has long since eclipsed Russian in foreign language instruction in schools—it's two decades after the fall. English (to a lesser degree, German) is the clear choice as the new lingua franca, facing outward to the EU. The majority of Latvia's "non-citizen" Russophones, primarily Russian, transplanted to Latvia after WWII during Soviet occupation, have become naturalized citizens, which requires demonstrating basic Latvian proficiency. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian people, who have grown up during Soviet occupation usually speaks Russian quite good (not fluently), but younger generation (born in the middle of 1980s and later) usually have big problems with Russian and they prefer English (lesser degree, German and others languages) as primary foreign language. Exception is young Latvians who grew up in areas with high Russian density. The second thing is: as young Russians from collapse of Soviet union till today speak Latvian (and English) better and better, the importance of Russian from Soviet age had decreased. So I don't agree, that "majority of Latvian people can speak fluent Russian" and primary foreign language of course is English.--Riharcc (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)--Riharcc (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend taking off the absurd "Baltic Duchy" from this context. Andrievs Niedra government was Pro-German, yes, puppet government, yes, government of "Baltic Duchy", NO. They pretended to be government of Republic of Latvia, not government of Baltic Duchy. Baltic Duchy is total anacronism in context of 1919, it would suggest that Landeswehr and Iron Division fought for monarchy (after abdication of Kaiser himself) which is absolutely ridiculous. It is no less absurd than calling Lenin "prime minister of Russian Tsar" just because most of his supporters were Russians. And it is not just this article, somebody has written whole Wikipedia full of that absurd "Baltic Duchy of 1919" idiocy.Warbola (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]