Talk:Latvia/Archive 2

Motto
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Risk for tourists
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)


 * 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)

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

Religion
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)

Tagging
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)

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)


 * 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. Reinistalk 08:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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. Reinistalk 08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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&mdash;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. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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  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. Reinistalk 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Links
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. &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Latvia as part of the USSR
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Sorry, I forgot to mention that I appreciate your reply, Xil. --Leonid Dzhepko 06:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Independence
In the infobox it says: 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)
 * Declared 18 November 1918
 * Proclaimed 4 May 1990

Chinese in Russian Revolution

 * 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)

Tagging
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)


 * 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)

Russian-speaking country category
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)

The inclusion of Kosovo
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Well that's nothing tragic it just forms a bit of wrong angle, never mind Xil ...  sist!  00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Catholic missionaries,not just christian
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
 * 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)

Languages for country name in intro
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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)


 * 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)
 * 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 "(Sweden)" to be given in the intro for Sverige as well? —Zalktis (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 "(Almanya)", does it? Nor does Spain list "(Espanya)". Does including "(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)

(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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)

The map on the page.
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.

Racism
"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)


 * 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)

== Today the Latvians and Lithuanians are the only surviving members of the Baltic peoples and Baltic languages of the Indo-European family - patently fasle statementMikhail Drabkin (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC) == 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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

I challenge the factual correctness and veracity of the LATVIA Wiki article and request editing privileges to the post from the Moderator
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


 * 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)


 * 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


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

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 (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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatures are for talk pages
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)
 * Thank you for the practical suggestions, much apprecaite it !Mikhail Drabkin (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Category removal
I've added 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

'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)


 * "whose diplomats remained in the Diplomatic list representing their states"
 * That's very tricky worded. Though the Lumans book given as source a few times in the article indeed says that the diplomats kept their diplomatic status, it also says that UK and USA refused to recognise any further officially the embassies of the baltic states. I'm quite sure you were aware of that, else you wouldn't have used this way to formulate your answer. That's Kindergarten manners. Boring and time wasting.
 * Really, a very tricky worded answer, as indeed that part of your sentence is right, but you omit the decisive part. : 82.113.106.91 (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)

Infobox redux
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    </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Russian language
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)
 * 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. <span style="color:#a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

of "Baltic Duchy" headed by Andrievs Niedra ?????
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)


 * You are correct, it's probably impossible to find all of it at this point, most of the activity around that has been repeatedly deleting the spam article on the "Duchy." <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 04:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper Citation
According to Wikipedia guidelines, information must be substantiated with a verifiable source. (Sadly) The authors of this particular article, on Latvia, were unable implement this. Most of the "information" has no verifiable source to solidify its correctness. I was (unfortunately) forced to place a [citation needed] in most sentences. If the writings cannot be verified through sources, then according to Wikipedia policy, they must at some point in the future be removed. Slaja (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

As an addition to my prior comment, I suggest that for a comparable article, but properly written and cited, read and examine the article on Estonia. It contains 170 citations, compared to 33 for Latvia, and disperses them neatly and effectively. One cannot say the same for the few thinly spread, haphazardly positioned citations in this article, Latvia. Slaja (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is nobody willing to verify with proper citations the information which was written on this page, Latvia. I don't relish it, but every sentence which I, or others, placed with a [citation needed] warning will be deleted shortly in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Information, especially on a subject of high importance such as a sovereign EU-27 nation, cannot be unverified.


 * I shall wait until December 21st 2009 before deleting every sentence marked. If it is your writing and you have a source for it, please just properly cite the material, it is not hard. If not the resulting article will certainly have little information. Slaja (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask you to reconsider ? I believe this rule has been created so that editors can remove dubious claims without asking. Of course you are right and there should be citations, but destroying most of the article would be reckless, rather than helpful. A lot of the content has been added years ago and original contributors may have left Wikipedia since. If it bothers you so much perhaps you could check these facts yourself and source them. Mind you one of the core rules of Wikipedia is that sometimes you should ignore the rules Xil  (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hearsay, speculation, and arrogance, that is how I would classify your response. I am trying to be helpful, not reckless. I followed proper rules and common sense, then you indicate that it is of no meaning. Because you're the one being very helpful. How about instead of insulting me and my efforts you try to get some citations, since you speak the Latvian language and have access to texts little available elsewhere. How did Estonia get to have 171 citations (including a well cited history section), and Latvia 39 (almost none in the history section)? It does bother me that on the wiki of a sovereign EU nation the history is virtually citation free. It obviously doesn't bother you though because you would rather point out that I should "ignore the rules". You must be a supporter of misinformation, what are your views on propaganda again? Slaja (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them are well known facts from scools history books, so these ```ciation needed`` mania after almost each sentence is suprise for me. I would put Your asked references with pleasure - its very easy, but unfortunatly I am not in Latvia at the moment. Xil, atsauces parparem var atrast jebkura parasta pamatskolas/viduskolas vestures gramata - ja ir iespeja saliec, lai tak cilveks nomierinas, citadi izkidas visu rakstu :).--Riharcc (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to insult you, but to reason with you. I feel that your response qualifies as personal attack, motivation of which I don't understand. You were complaining that most information is not sourced, therefore I assumed that you want to delete it, just because there is a rule that lets you do that, even thought you have checked similar article and established that most of what you want to delete probably is factually accurate. Furthermore, as far as I remember, English Wikipedia prefers English sources being used, so you can find as good references as I could. If you feel that there is "propaganda" we ought to be discussing which information in particular, you think are not neutral.
 * Taisnība gan, dažviet pat ir pieņemts, ka vispārzināmiem faktiem nevajag par katru cenu likt atsauces. Tīri teorētiski mācību grāmatas iespējams nav tas labākais avots, turklāt tiek ieteikts izmantot avotus angliski. Bet šķiet, ka cilvēkam patiesībā te nepatīk veids kā pasniegti fakti, nevis tas ka nav atsauču (par ko pat varētu piekrist - vietām tas viss ir parāk dzejiski) Xil  (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I would not advise the use of an internet based translator, a dictionary would be much more incisive. Secondly, from what I could discern from the latter: 1. No I do not know if the information is accurate, I have no proficiency of Latvian History. 2. English is preferable, but other languages are not unusable, especially when there are NO sources. 3. I did not state that I thought the article in question was propaganda, I was clearly making a commentary on your views regarding "unsourced" material.


 * Since no one can verify the material, as I have previously stated, it cannot be displayed. Wikipedia is the work of the collective, to ensure cited, reliable material. This is not cited, reliable material. December 21st the material in question shall be removed to ensure that there is no possible misinformation.


 * As a suggestion to you personally, I can think of only one more suggestion to help you cite material, perhaps on the Latvian version of this page there are some useful sources. If you could ascertain those and include them to the English article it would be certainly sufficient. (Let's not get into personal disputes, we can deal with this politely.) Slaja (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I would not advise the use of an internet based translator, a dictionary would be much more incisive. huh ?
 * I don't see how my views can be described as pro-propoganda, if there is no propoganda in the first place. The only reason I answered you was to try to reason with you, because I feel that deleting portions of article, because rule intended for removal of false claims lets you, I didn't intend to edit this article. As far as I know Latvian article on History of Latvia has been tagged for clean-up (and I think I was the one who tagged it, because it was a mess so complicated, that I couldn't find a way to correct it). Most of the facts you tagged are common knowledge and you surely will find sources in English, be bold and get them, because neither I, nor Riharcc are in Latvia and have any access to school history textbooks. And BTW, it is possible that it actually is referenced - some people put quotations at the end of paragraph, not right after the fact Xil  (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps a gentle request for citations would have sufficed? I was working on History of Riga when some Wiki unpleasantries broke out elsewhere which have taken all my time. (If anything, over-cited in my re-write so far!) There is no need to bandy about threats of massive content deletion. If anyone massively deletes or tags the article, I will revert as vandalism. If there is content which appears to be a claim of dubious origin (as opposed to well-established facts), please list them in article talk here in a constructive manner. Threats are inappropriate. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 17:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you did not read the thread properly, sir. I have been practically begging for proper citations for almost a month now because I was shocked at the state of this article (completely inadequate regarding Wikipedia policy), on an EU nation. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WIDELY NEGLECTED. What was the response? There was none, no ones seems to care that there is a possibility that this article is spreading misinformation on a wide scale (this article gets viewed hundreds of thousands a time per month). Not a care. Mr "Xil" told me not to follow the rules regarding citations.


 * And to you, Mr "Vecrumba", you are not a "wiki dictator", and you cannot threaten me. So do not make statements in which you portray yourself as the only, and final voice on this collaborative. I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines regarding citation in such a manor that was relaxed. I partially alerted the problem by placing "citation needed" warnings (there were already a considerable amount before mine were added), and by putting up the "citation needed" banner on the top of the page. I attempted to call on the writers to simply cite their work properly. I gave examples. I gave tips. I even have waited for 29 days. Yet according to Wikipedia, since the material included could be viewed as contentious, I should have removed it immediately. Your threats are inappropriate. And since both of you are obviously biased in this regard why am I surprised you are acting this way. You both know it is very, very poorly sourced. (Who, having examined it, does not?)


 * What is widely established fact regarding the phrases with the citation needed tags? I have a history degree and have never heard of them, nor can I find material which sufficiently proves them as true. How about, you explain for example the following phrases tagged:

"The modern name of Latvia is thought to originate from the ancient Latvian name Latvji, which, like the name of Lithuania, may have originated from the river named Latuva." (I have looked, and came to the conclusion this is made up.)

"These times were known as "Šķidrās Maizes laiki" or the days of liquid bread." (Cannot find anything regarding this.)

"Revolt against the government was very unlikely however, because during "Ulmaņa Laiki" Latvia experienced one of the highest standards of living in the world." (What is this a forum for nostalgic Latvian government workers? This is 100% POV.)

"130,000 took refuge from the Soviet army by fleeing to the Germany and Sweden." (Exactly 130,000 left for only Germany and Sweden? Can't find that anywhere)

"All together 120,000 Latvian inhabitants were imprisoned or deported to Soviet concentration camps (the Gulag)." (No source. Again sounds like from a biased view.)

"Albeit having experienced a difficult transition to a liberal economy and its re-orientation toward Western Europe, its economy had one of the highest growth rates." (The economy of Latvia [when inflation is taken into account, using chained 1991 international dollars] has grown by 15.6 percent during 1991-2008. An average annual growth rate of 0.86, is not one of the "highest" growth rates, it is one of the lowest possible [over such a long period of time].)

I could go on, and on, for every phrase tagged. I, as you can discern, have tried to look for myself, so do not tell me to be bold "Xil", I have been trying, it is the authors of this article who showed no care for the Wikipedia guidelines. Slaja (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say was that you shouldn't always follow the rules to the letter to the extent that you do more damage than good, that's what WP:IAR is about. I never said that there is no problem, merely that it is unlikely original contributor will come to fix it and you should try to find sources before you start deleting stuff. If you didn't feel like doing it, you could have brought these issues up here in the first place, instead of questioning intentions of other users, but you didn't (even when I asked you to do so nine days ago) and now you expect this to be fixed overnight.
 * And we could discuss every fact - here's a quick assessment of the facts tagged on basis of what I know (in order of appearance): etymology should be sourced, true, partly true (Balts ?), may be true (900 AD ?), bad wording, true (though Pope sounds fishy), stereotype, true (but bad wording), true, stereotype, connects two unrelated facts, most likely true, true, most likely true, should be analyzed in more detail, should be analyzed in more detail, partly true (loanwords bit definitely needs to be sourced), most likely true, I don't know, I don't know, biased, biased, biased, true, not exactly, why would Latvia be any exception, considering there were such changes in whole world ?, may be true, most likely true, true, true, true, I don't know (but Latvia didn't suffer much from the depression), true, POV and stereotype, true, most likely true (this is very likely sourced with references 10 and 11), true, quite likely true, at least partly true, not sure, true, most likely true, bad wording, most likely true, true, bad wording, might be true, very likely, may be true (depending on what is meant by "economic infrastructure"), true, true, juridically true, that's just one way to interpret these events, most likely true, most likely true, which laws exactly ?, this probably refers to more recent years, stereotype, most likely true, I don't know, of course there are Jews in Latvia, most likely true (I remember reeding something like that in one of my textbooks back in high school), true, sounds right (but what is this particular culture life ?), I don't know. As we discussed before in Latvian (sorry I forgot you missed most of what was being said there), for most part it is something they teach in Latvian schools, so there should be enough resources online as well. If you can't find particular facts, you still should be able to find some information about the period in question, as you have degree in history, I guess, you should be able to figure out, if there are any errors on basi of information you got and correct article accordingly, instead of simply deleting everything Xil  (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we get your point, now go fix it. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the result of my prudent actions? The way this article is governed is highly inefficient. English, nor Latvian is my native language, and I have no significant knowledge of the latter's history. I originally posted because I noticed the state of the article, its dubious/biased claims, and very poorly sourced material. That does not mean I have to rewrite and research it! I was simply indicating the revisionary flaws I encountered and stressed the importance of fixing them. Now since I have determined this particular article garners little serious interest, and acts as a kangaroo court, I will leave it. Congratulations, keep the article just the way you want it, no matter how sub-standard. Slaja (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, keep the article just the way you want it, no matter how sub-standard. - have you tried saying that in front of a mirror ? Nobody is working on this article, if you are as uninterested in improving it as everyone else, blame yourself not others. Xil  (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the details for which references have been requested seem to correspond reasonably close to historical details in this "Latvian Institute" brief: History of Latvia. The problem with that text, however, is that it does not use inline references - there is just a list of works at the end, which was used in compiling the brief... Doc15071969 (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Latvija/Latvia
Ok, what to do about the river name hypothesis(?), whatever the name may have been - Lata, Late, Latve or even Latuva. It seems to be as good or as bad as other attempts to trace the name of territories of modern day Latvia back to something for which there exists no written primary sources like chronicles... It is plausible that the 'Lat'/'Let' root predates chronicles, but it is difficult to pin down to indisputable evidence.

The first diff with 'river hypothesis' appears to be this. I have also traced down where the particular rendition of 'river hypothesis' may have come - it could be an out of date Background Note of the US Department of State :

"Latvians occasionally refer to themselves by the ancient name of "Latvji," which may have originated from a "Latve" river that presumably flowed through what is now eastern Latvia. A small Finno-Ugric tribe known as the Livs settled among the Latvians and modulated the name to "Latvis," meaning "forest-clearers," which is how medieval German settlers also referred to these peoples. The German colonizers changed this name to "Lette" and called their initially small colony "Livland." The Latin form, "Livonia," gradually referred to the whole of modern-day Latvia as well as southern Estonia, which had fallen under German dominion."

There are some sources asserting "Latvis" ("Latvji", "Latve" are plural and feminine gender) to be vernacular names (see for instance Bilmanis, 1947 ), the trouble is - they don't seem to give any explanation for the origin and not the 'river hypothesis' in particular. This speaks about 'river hypothesis' as fairly common view, the river being somewhere in the historic "Latgale" (not necessarily present day Latgale). Unfortunately that site would not qualify as reliable source, I believe. Doc15071969 (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is highly suspicious if someone has so clear idea what something was called when there are no written accounts on it. The only thing we know for sure is that Germans called Latgalians Lett, but we don't know why, so everyone can make an educated guess. Ethnonyms tend to be either what people call themselves or what their neighbors (or other people who often deal with them) call them. In first case people may simply call themselves humans, but the neighbors usually are called by where they live or what marks them as different (language, tradition, looks etc), so it is not surprising, if people choose to think there was some river named Latve or Livonians called their neighbors forest clearers. I think there is no reason to have etymology here at all, because in any way it would only be a guess Xil  (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with the reasoning, though obviously I may also have missed something. Maybe it's worth asking the folks who have contributed to the 'river hypothesis' over time? I'll try to find all of them and see if they are still contributing and list them here:


 * User:Karabinier is still active.


 * Doc15071969 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, take look at these:


 * "Latvija, latvietis sind suffixale Ableitungen von latvis. Dieses stammt aus älteren Gebietsnamen Latva, Latuva, der wohl am ehesten hydronymischer Herkunft ist, vgl. GN lit. Latavà, Latuvà (..)"


 * "This sound development explains the form Latvi(j)a (Lettenland). This form is reflected back to a small rivulet (Latava/Latuva) on the right side of the River Šventojai on Lithuanian grounds(1) solely for the reason that the Baltic names for peoples usually developed from the names of territories which originally came from water names."


 * In other words, the 'river hypothesis' can be found in published sources -- both in a speculative form similar to that in the article and in the form of expressing doubts about it -- just need to search rigorously. That fact in itself, of course, does not decide whether the one sentence summary of topic is appropriate for Wiki article. I'm still leaning towards "no, no real need to include", but there is no pressing need to remove it either, I think.Doc15071969 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it is, when I said it is a good guess, I meant good guess for a scientist, I got book on Baltic languages in which I tried to look for some etymology, but in parts I found to be dealing with ethnonyms, there are notes saying that you ought to look elsewhere in the book for etymology of country names elsewhere in the book - and sections supposed to deal with other kind of ethnonyms are so vague (the main of them says that Baltic ethnonyms should be viewed in wider European and pre-IndoEuropean context, as there are some similar names in other languages e.g. Latvians supposedly sound Celtic) that it makes me seriously think that no one has any serious proof, so they just use river names, because it sometimes probaly has worked. Speaking of which - I think I've found our culprit - lt:Latava (upė) Xil  (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

School life expectancy
The article says: The average Latvian leaves school at 15.5 years old (14 for males, 17 for females) this implies that most kids receive only primary education or don't finish the school at all as most 15 year olds are in the ninth grade. Therefore I checked the reference (CIA World Factbook), where there is no such "education expectancy", but similar indicator, which gives roughly the same numbers as in article, is defined as the total number of years of schooling (primary to tertiary) that a child can expect to receive, assuming that the probability of his or her being enrolled in school at any particular future age is equal to the current enrollment ratio at that age - it seems that it rather means that Latvians leave school at age of 23, males at 21 and females at 24 (assuming that they start at age of 7), which means that most of them, especially females, have tertiary education. Or am I missing something ? Xil (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like they are referring to mandatory education. According to Law of Education, primary education (up to ninth grade including) is mandatory or should be continued till person reaches age of 18. http://www.likumi.lv/doc.php?id=50759 MarisN (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't say anything that would indicate that. And as for mandatory education - even knowing that few years ago there was some debate about teens not finishing 9th grade, this seemed a bit too much, so I checked the source and I think whoever wrote it misunderstood what these data mean and, if other users agree, this should be removed. Nē, tur ir teikts, ka vidējais latvietis savu skološanos beidz 15 gadu vecumā - pat zinot, ka pietiekami daudziem cilvēkiem ir problēmas beigt devīto klasi, šāds fakts likās nedaudz par traku (tas nozīmētu, ka latviešu vīriešiem vispār nav izglītības un sievietēm ir tikai vidējā, lai kā gribētos, mēs tomēr nedzīvojam kādā banānu republikā), tāpēc es paskatījos, kas teikts atsaucē. Tur vispār nav tāda parametra kā norādīts atsaucē, bet ir ļoti līdzīgs, kur nebija vidējais rādītājs, bet ļoti līdzīgi skaitļi par abiem dzimumiem. Taču šie skaitļi tur apzīmē, nevis vecumu, bet izglītības ilgumu gados, kas savukārt nozīmētu, ka (zinot, ka bērni skolā iet no 7 gadu vecuma) vairums cilvēku iegūst augstāko izglītību, nevis knapi pabeidz pamatskolu. Izskatā, ka kāds ir nepareizi sapratis ko tie dati nozīmē, tāpēc vajadzētu šo faktu vākt laukā. Xil  (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one minds I will remove that sentence - it's been almost a month now Xil  (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that, or the proper meaning of similar number in referenced work should be given, I think.Doc15071969 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed it, because it isn't really very important and we would have to explain the meaning of the term Xil  (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I stumbled into another incarnation of this stuff at Latvian people and replaced it there with: "Average school expectancy for 5-year-olds (from pre-primary to higher education) was 17,8 in 2006", taken from Eurydice report highlights here. Not sure though if that single sentence is completely clear and unambiguous or even required there either - maybe in the education article...Doc15071969 (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Human rights
This section is clearly biased - it is not even about human rights, but the ethical conflict between Russian and Latvians. It represents Russian view (thought some anonymous user just has added Latvian counter argument) and this seems not to be based on facts but on what someone thinks or has heard. The nazi marches is one thing that has to do only with Russians vs. Latvians not human rights (is holding a meeting violation of human rights ?). I left everything else, but the claims are exaggerated: And if it is about human rights, other human right questions should be addressed - what about right of gathering and protesting ? How about long trials and life quality in jails ? Xil (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be noted that the move of not granting Russian-speaking population voting rights was clearly political. - no it doesn't, politics are political, this is redundant.
 * It resulted in significant minority of population in Latvia being unrepresented in parliament. around 50% of Russians have citizenship and voting rights, there are pro-minorities parties in parliament.
 * Further policies introduced by the Latvian Government were aimed at decreasing the influence of the Russian language in the country. For example, a ban was introduced on street signs in Russian. Laws were passed prohibiting anyone from speaking Russian while at work. I am not sure if first example can be described as ban, the second is simply not true. Needs to be reworde to reflect the facts (that there are no bilingual signs anymore and that there are sme requirements to know Latvian for certain jobs)
 * Furthermore, a highly controversial education reform was launched, abolishing all Russian schools and introducing compulsory education in Latvian. Also not true - while the reform was controversial, Russian schools were not abolished, rather students are required to take part of the classes in Latvian
 * Such policies left a significant minority without access to education in their native language and could be seen as a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, which Latvia is a party to. As said above education in native language is at least partly available. And who sees this as violation ?
 * I had a bit more time to look into this. I see that this was inserted by an anonymous user few days ago, given that the person hasn't made other edits and that chance of such editors returning usualy is not very big I removed the section as per Wikipedia citation policy highly dubious unreferenced claims actually can be removed immediately with no discussion Xil  (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly slanting towards partisanship and bias. Human rights have been a serious issue in Latvia since 1991.

They (among many) include cases of the Latvian government repressing ethnic Russians: Andrejeva v. Latvia, Andrejeva v. Latvia, Ādamsons v. Latvia, Podkolzina v. Latvia, see; European Court of Human Rights. In every case the Latvian government was found to be discriminatory, and was ordered to pay substantial payments to the affected parties.

The Language policy of Latvia was called discriminatory by the US government, and was articulated by former ambassador to the Baltic States, Catherine Todd Bailey.

It was made illegal to speak any language but Latvian at government buildings or departments in Latvia. Public signage cannot be in Russian at an locale, even if it is majority Russophone, such as Riga, and Daugavpils.

Conditions of prisons in Latvia have been highly criticized as being decrepit and dangerous by the EU, and the foreign ministry of the British government, among others.

It's policies towards the treatment of LGBT rights have been scrutinized as discriminatory, see; Janis Smits.

The annual gathering of the pro-SS in Riga, who collaborated with the Nazi's in the mass murder of over 85,000 Jews, and the killing of the allied forces has caused considerable anger in EU nations, such as Britain, and the Netherlands. The Latvian government spends annually 0,6 million euros on security and organizational overhead costs to protect the ceremony so that it can be completed every year.

The treatment of Gypsies has been flagged by the LCHRES.

From BBC:

"ensuring human rights of patients in mental health clinics, residents of immigration camps and police victims. Experts noted particular cruelty of Latvian policemen on the borderline with tortures. The system of monitoring the measures taken following violations complaints against Latvian police is not developed. The problem of overpopulation in Latvian prisons has not been resolved.

Elements of anti-Semitism and homophobia could be found in interviews and public statements of Latvian politicians. Last year was productive also for the Latvian nationalist extremist Aivars Garda: the newspaper DDD [Deoccupation, Decolonization, Debolshevization] continued to be published and a number of rallies took place in the capital of Latvia"

Why do you pretend to be non-partisan? It is deceitful at best. 216.99.49.7 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't pretend, I wasn't taking sides, I would have left the text alone, if it had been based on facts, not in your views of what these facts mean. I suggested you find facts on jails or something else, so I don't see your point making it a counterargument. But if you want "partisan" - baning a meeting of supposed nazi collaborators (any proof, that these particular people, some of whom weren't even born during WWII, colaborated with nazis ?) or banning minor group of idiots from publishing their stupid newspaper also would be violation of human rights - freedom of assembly and freedom of speech - it so happens that Latvians, even extreme nationalists, too have human rights, everything Russians don't like in Latvia is not violation of human rights, for once someone could describe true indecencies, not what Moscow says. Xil  (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The flight of the Baltic Germans before Sowjet troops entered wasn't a "resettlement" but an expulsion
Baltic Germans had to leave, because it was known by all sides that there existed "black lists" with the names of people who were to be deported once the Sowjet troops entered.

Those lists were written mainly by people in the unions. As said it was known that those lists existed by all sides, not only the one who wrote them (those people in the unions), and whom they were wrote for (the Sowjet troops), but it was also known by the German officials in Germany. And it was known by the Baltic German: To save their own lives and health and to ensure their human rights there was no other way then to leave - and that is expulsion.

For those who don't know: The Baltic Germans never voted in a FREE election for the NSDAP and Hitler: At the last free election in Germany when the NSDAP gained power the Baltic Germans were not Voters in that Election.

On a side note 3 more points: - Surfing on various websites about Latvia I have found that about half of them try to give an accurate account, while the other half only wants to show what suits them best. I regret it very much that this article seems to be written by the latter half.

- About the section "Declaration of Independence": On a website that covered the history of fights in Latvia more extensivly than it is done in this article here it was said, that Germans groups fought on both sides in the years up to 1919 - one group of them for the independence and another group with the Russians. The article in it's current state says they would have only fought with the Russian side.

- About "German Baltic nobility": Like on some of the websites I have visited this article also depicts it as if there are only two groups: Poor serving Latvians on the one end and the "German Baltic nobility" on the other. - If you would look at the population numbers of Latvians and Germans, you would see that the majority of the people originating from Germany, the Baltic Germans, obviously can't be "nobility" because of their sheer number. If I remember it right what I have read, they were in *some* areas and at a few times even the majority in the population. When they came to the Baltic land they were just farmers, and at the same time craftsmen, who first had to make the farm land arable by themselves. They didn't go there to "rule" over anyone. They went there just because there was unused land and they themself came from even poorer areas. Some of them didn't even go directly to the Baltic countries but first tried to make other destinations arable for example in Denmark. These groups never came uninvited to those places. It was hoped that they would help develop the countries. Their children eventually have moved in the cities later, as it happens in all developing countries as soon as general wealth and new socials structures in the society are formed. - As far as I know Latvians and Baltic Germans lived *peaceful together for a very long time*. At least the people I know all learned the Latvian language. And it would even have been possible that they would have gained the Latvian citizenship - if not Germany and Hitler and Stalin came along ruining the people's life. And not to forget the "powers of the free world" that originally promised "to stand by the Latvians' side" and defend their independence, but then, where have they been at that particularly event of history when Latvia lost it's independence?


 * You're sure you understand correctly ? Today Latvians don't hold any anti Baltic German views, so there is absolutely no reason why anyone would take sides. The German resettlement occurred in 1939. before war in an independent Latvia and was voluntary. I don't know what you mean by "unions", but I find it quite unlikely any black lists were made before the Soviets occupied Latvia as they wouldn't have had information and means to do so. What was the motivation of these people and what happened to them afterwards is a topic for separate article. During the independence war there was no Russian side, German forces which were left in the country after WWI to support Latvian government, had their own agenda and turned against Latvians forming an army, which for political reasons claimed to be Russian royalists. Xil  (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't said anywhere that 'Latvians would hold any anti Baltic German views' today. I don't even see why anyone would say that about Latvia.
 * That doesn't change the fact that some, but not all, of the previous comments from other people on this discussion page are true.
 * You write: "During the independence war there was no Russian side".
 * I spoke about what is written in the article section "Declaration of Independence": "Estonian and Latvian forces defeated the Germans at the Battle of Cēsis in June 1919, and a massive attack by a German and Russian force under Pavel Bermondt-Avalov was repelled in November."
 * About the black lists: They were written by communistic people who of course had connections to the Soviet side and communistic party. The article even mentions at some point communistic caders. They were for example in the labor unions. (Sorry for writing only "union" first, I thought for people who would know about that part of history it would be obvious which "unions" are meant.) It's well known that the Soviet Communistic Party (and so the whole Soviet system) supported and tried to push communistic structures all over the world. I write "it's well known" because if you don't even know about that I really wonder. It was the Soviet Communistic Party's (and communistic organizations' worldwide) absolutly official agenda to assist in the spread of the "communistic idea".
 * It's proven that there were black lists. I'm sure you could find infos about them by simple using a good search website. Seeing that you actively participated very much on this article I'm really a bit shocked that you don't know about them and about the communistic caders.
 * But that just supports why I found that this article is mainly written by the aforementioned "latter half".
 * And of course I never put forward an accusation against the overall Latvian population at that time: I quite clearly wrote and it is just absolutly unmistakingly: "As far as I know Latvians and Baltic Germans lived *peaceful together for a very long time*. At least the people I know all learned the Latvian language. And it would even have been possible that they would have gained the Latvian citizenship -  if not Germany and Hitler and Stalin came along ruining the people's life. And not to forget the "powers of the free world" that originally promised "to stand by the Latvians' side" and defend their independence, but then, where have they been at that particularly event of history when Latvia lost it's independence?"


 * About the topic of my first post you actually only say: "What was the motivation of these people and what happened to them afterwards is a topic for separate article."
 * You are missing the point here totally. I didn't suggest in any way to any author of this article to elaborate on this.
 * But actually *in this article here* it is just erroneous to call it a "resettlement". This article here is incorrect. That denotation "resettlement" is wrong, it was an expulsion.
 * It would totally suffice if the words were changed properly. To people who know about the sense of these terms "resettlement" and "expulsion" it will give just a wrong account of history if it is called "resettlement". To people who don't know about the sense of these terms "resettlement" and "expulsion" I only can suggest to ask themselves why in school they were not taught the meanings of those words, that are vital for the understanding of so many events in history *and nowadays*!


 * You have written just a few sentences, but still there are so utterly many faults in it. I wonder if you even know the meaning of expulsion or if you at least tried to look it up.
 * Actually I haven't written much of this article. But I know history and what I am talking about. I know what part of text you were talking about, I already explained why I was saying "no Russians" to you and I am not going to repeat myself. It is well known indeed, however I doubt communists had enough data and participants to make usable lists for tens of thousands of people, when they attacked they could force local authorities to make such lists and even if there was a rumor that there will be deportation among Baltic Germans it is still their choice to run, no one is forcing them. Now judging from your tone, you don't want to understand and since, you don't seem to have any particular suggestions for the article, end of th discussion - this is not a forum Xil  (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You write: "even if there was a rumor that there will be deportation among Baltic Germans it is still their choice to run, no one is forcing them."
 * That just proves that you don'T know the meaning of "expulsion" and that you obviously haven't looked it up since your first post though I even explicitly suggested to you to look it up.
 * "Expulsion" as legal terminus has a clear definition, and leaving because of the threat to once life and health and human rights is an "expulsion".
 * The word "resettlement" was explicitly introduced by Propaganda many tenth of years ago for the commons goals of Propaganda: Pushing some point of view though that particularly propagated point of view is indeed false.
 * In the present context that we find in the article by using the word "resettlement" on topics that have been cleared even legaly in some countries and cleared by declarations by some of the involved countries and cleared by international binding definitions the author of that part of the article has to face the reasonable charge of supporting and standing for the value-system of state-terror that made up the Communistic Systems and the Stalin-system back then.
 * Indeed it's senseless to try to talk with you further as long as you are deliberatly abandon to overcome your gap of knowledge about the international binding definition of "expulsion".


 * That you write 'you would have explained why there was no Russian side' only yourself will understand, as there is no place where to find such an explanation by you.
 * That you say you knew at your first post which section in the article I was referring to just shows the fact that you had no intention at the first place in a conversation found between reasonably discussing people, because already the article itself clearly refers to Russian troops.
 * As said and already stated by other people on this discussion page you more than once show that you belong to the "latter half".
 * This is indeed "no forum" - and everyone who read a few discussion pages throughout wikipedia knows that writing this is just a common excuse used by people who took (and take) the sides of false statements' as soon as they can't evade the misery of their collapsing buildings of made up history and made up declarations and who by shouting "No FORUM" try to end the public discussion at all.
 * Thus I honour your intention and look forward to you to stay out of this discussion section from now on and give other people with more knowledge and true interest in this topic the chance to exchange their views and facts about this in order to improve the article. Most people with that knowledge actually don't check the discussion pages daily, and conclusivly they don't even know at all at once when there is a new section on the discussion page, so don'T worry if there will be no other replies for some weeks. The facts won't chance just because it takes some time to "meet" whatfor most people have to use their free time as it would be with a meeting in the real world, "outside the internet".
 * Nevertheless, farewell.


 * P.S. You really should read the Lumans book given as source on googlebook. Around 90% of the pages were visible when I visited Google books. Though Lumans doesn't discuss the difference between "resettlement" and "expulsion", he clearly sums up all the facts needed to tell why it is an expulsion. - But then, I forgot you seem to refuse to find out what statutes a flight as "expulsion".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.91 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * XD, Public discussion on what ? As I said you haven't suggested any changes and what you are saying really makes me think that you are trying to fire up forum style flame war, which won't work here because no one else reads this page, so don't waste your energy.
 * Anyways, I actually just wanted to note, if someone else cares, that I changed the passage on Germans and Russians, because the Russian pat of the force was significantly smaller than German (lv.wikipedia has cotradicting data on numbers, but the most exact puts 1500 Russians with 10500 Germans) Xil  (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To our anonymous poster: Please keep in mind what "Wikipedia is not" and "verifiability". Thank you. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

B-class?
This has got to be one of the worst articles I have read on a sovereign nation. What happened here? This article is terrible, and it is obvious that it has been written by individuals without an advanced knowledge of the English language. (total rewrite req') 206.126.80.23 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lettonia
Can anyone tell me when Lettonia was replaced by Latvia in English? And maybe add that piece of information to the article. --92.224.173.43 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do You think, that "Latvia" ever was "Lettonia" in English?--87.110.93.241 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Women
Wikipedia should feature Latvian women! w00t! Simoncpu (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect GDP data
World Bank shows GDP PPP 2012 for Latvia at 42.471 Billion not 38 Billion as mentioned in this article. This is also the data used by many other countries. Can someone look into this? Link: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.143.75 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disproportionate amount of pro-Jewish content
"See also: Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, The Holocaust in Latvia, Latvian partisans, and Latvian resistance movement"

Also the WW2 sub article is way too long. This article needs to reflect German Nazi's in a less negative more objective light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.2.239 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Template:citations needed an overkill ?
I doubt the usefulness of having this tag - there are 80 inline citations, which may be not enough given the lenght of the article, still some sections are underreferenced while others are fine. I think this tag won't encourage anyone to fix the article and is confusing being placed right above lead full of references. I propose to remove it and consider more specific section tags where needed: So even though referencing is uneven there are only two major sections with no references, those that have very few reffereces mosty list wel known facts or in fact are based on a single reference, but elsewhere, where there are more citations already, more specific tags have been applied. So I suggest to remove the tag and to tag the two sections with no references instead Xil  (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead - this is the only section where you can't pace mores specific tag, still, it appears to be well referenced (aside from questionable etymology), besides lead should summerize facts detailed and cited elsewhere in the article
 * 2) History - allready riddled with inline  tags
 * 3) Government and politics - this short section and its susection has only one ref, so there is a room for improvement, still there is no imidiate need to cite well known facts
 * 4) Military - the first section to have no references what so ever
 * 5) Administrative divisions - the second section to have no references what so ever
 * 6) Geography  - only one reference, most facts, however, are common knowedge
 * 7) Latvia's national trees, bird, flower and insect - There is one reference, yet, to my kowledge, it should be where all statements in this section come from
 * 8) Economy - it is refereced, though not all facts in it appear to be cited
 * 9) Demographics - partialy cited, has inline  tags for most uncited facts, the laguage subsection has no references, while education section has references for every sentence
 * 10) Culture and arts - also partialy cited and has  atgs
 * 11) International rankings - it appears that all facts are cited

Latvian literature
R.Blaumanis, Krisjanis Valdemars, Krisjanis Barons, Birznieks- Upitis, Fricis Brivzemnieks, Aspazija, Rainis are main latvian writers, folkrorists, poets, lingvists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.5.4 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong need for a section or article on historical and contemporary Latvian literature - preferably by someone who knows more about the subject than I do. Colin Ryan (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

??????????
When I first heard of Latvia, I thought it was 'Latiniva', and it's official language was Latin. Then I heard it's real name, and it's real official language. How about this:

Not to be confused with Latium.

82.12.1.173 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The most popular sport in Latvia was (is) Bobsleigh
When I lived there back in 90's, many school trips lead to a huge bobsleigh gymnasium/hangar, where both professionals and trainees could practice. As far as I know, this sport was on top along with hockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.24.222 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Human rights section
Seems Latvia is the only country article that has "Human rights" as a sub-section, apart from Estonia, seems undue in comparison so I have removed it. --Nug (talk)
 * this is not a comparative article it is about a single country. Nug should feel free to suggest improvements in other articles but he is not free to use his personal POV to erase well-sourced material (based on its own article) -- human rights issues are very important in 21st century).  Rjensen (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't make personal attacks, you do not know what my "personal POV" is. No other country article has such a section which indicates an implicit standard style. It may be well sourced but it seems WP:UNDUE in that Latvia is being singled out here. This section never existed when this was a featured article, it fact it was added relatively recently. Note this same user added a sourced Human Rights section to other articles (for example here) which have been promptly removed. This has no place here. --Nug (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Erasing sourced material raises serious questions about the editor's POV. The "Undue" rule does not apply (it refers to giving too much attention to a a minor or fringe viewpoint in contrast to the main viewpoint.) The issue is whether this is important fully sourced material regarding Latvia, and it seems to be so. Nug has raised no substantive objections. Yes this article singles out Latvia, that is the topic. If Latvia gets fuller more thorough coverage than other countries, so much the better for readers studying Latvia. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen continues to assume bad faith by focusing upon an editor's alledged POV. The text under question is balanced with two viewpoints, i.e. Latvia both complies and doesn't comply with human rights norms, thus it is neutral and its removal does not change the balance of the topic what so ever. The issue is that articles are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts and this article is approaching 100k in size. No other article on a western country has this information derived from primary sources, which in any case would change from year to year as agencies publish and update their reports. --Nug (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)