Talk:Latvia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Latvia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I hope there is someone who watches this article on a regular basis who will find this. I just wanted to tell you about a resource I found that you could use to improve this page. It's the Latvian Institute's information on Latvia page. www.li.lv/en There's tons of information on this site, and they say it can all be reprinted word-for-word, as long as they're credited as the source. I'm not experienced enough with this page or Wikipedia editing in general to try adding everything myself, but I would love to see more added to this article, as I am half Latvian and without my Latvian parent from the age of five, so I've had to research everything myself. Thanks!

I just reverted an anon who changed the percentages of the ethnic groups in Latvia, because he did not cite a source or otherwise claim why he was changing them. If someone knows of a good resource on Latvian demographics, feel free to cite it and change the numbers appropriately. Tuf-Kat 22:54, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The anon that you reverted was a vandal. Here is a good resource [1] and the numbers are essentially the same as in the article now. Andris 23:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

As per the Latvian government's schedule of national holidays:

1. January 1 (New Year's Day)
2. April 14 and 17, 2006 (Good Friday and Easter Monday)
3. May 1 (Labor Day)
4. May 4 (Independence Proclamation Day)
5. June 23 and June 24 (Midsummer "Ligo" Holiday)
6. November 18 (Independence Day)
7. December 25 and 26 (Christmas)
8. December 31 (New Year's Eve)

August 21, 1991 also is not the date independence was recognized as was previously inserted, nor, as in the CIA factbook, when it was declared--that date was only the affirmation that Latvia considered the secession process completed which was proclaimed/begun on May 4th; you will also note August 21 is not a national holiday. Recognition came on September 2, 1991 from the U.S. and (I believe) September 6, 1991 from the Soviet Union/Russia but the template only allows for 4 dates. Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon vandalized the "history" section of this page yesterday; it was fixed but then apparently inadvertently reverted back to the vandalized version. I've reverted to the last pre-vandal edit; it looks like there might have been some good-faith edits in between but I can't sort them out; my apologies to anyone needing to re-contribute their edits. Jgm 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's up with all the recent vandalisms? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there are people who hate Latvia with passion. My humble guess is that they come from the east. ivi

All the inadequate changes have been reverted. --Juzeris 15:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've written to the owners of IP address 82.120.194.192 to point out the poor behavior emanating out of that location (somewhere in the bowels of France Telecom). Peters 06:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people here will be interested to tell their opinion at this vote for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupied_territories_of_Baltic_States

I've marked Politics section as non-neutral, particulary because of this phrase "which was seen as unfair by Russian community who moved in as colonists during Soviet times and during those times didn't have to learn Latvian". I do think that there is a big possibility that it could be considered offensive for both Latvians and Russians:) So I propose just to delete it. (This post was unsigned but was added by rrr on 24 August 2005.)

I disagree. The sentence is not perfect English, and I'd personally prefer (a policy considered unfair by the Russian community, most of whom emigrated to Latvia as colonists during the Soviet Era. During that time, authorities discouraged them from learning the Latvian language). The sentence does, however, quite correctly describe the facts. The Russian community in both Estonia and Latvia was notorious for refusing to learn Estonian or Latvian. In 1989, only 15% of Russians in Estonia knew how to speak Estonian, by 2000, the number had risen to almost 40%. The story in Latvia is very similar. Besides, it is a historical fact that both Latvia and Estonia were subject to a Soviet policy of colonization (although most of the Russians that moved to Latvia and Estonia probably didn't realise the implications of their act.) Only 20% of Estonia's Russian community are actually born in Estonia. (Source: the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [[2]]) During the Interwar years, the number of Russians in Estonia was less than 4% of the population. By 1991, the number had risen to more than 30%. (Source: The Great Danish Encyclopedia, article "Estonia" in Danish: Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, article Estland). The city of Narva was a clearly Estonian settlement in 1940, today, less than 5% of its people are ethnic Estonians (Again, my source is the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the same page).

The word colonization is also used by the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs [[3]] and by university professors (e.g. Mr. Vilnis Zariņš, [[4]].) The article "Demographics of Latvia" talks about deportations and russification, the article "Demographics of Estonia" about mass immigration, mass deportations and executions. That sounds pretty much like colonization to me. I've visited Latvia and talked to several Latvians about the issue, they all said the same. The sentence is not POV but a fact, although I agree, a rather unpleasant one. As a historian, I vote to keep it. --Valentinian 00:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It'me again - rrr. I will add some facts I've found later, but I think that Valentinian forgot to mention, that Mr. Vilnis Zariņš is member of Tevzemei un Brivibai, which often mentioned as national-radicals party, so his point of view couldn't be objective in this particular case. [[5]]

The second thing is that whole sentence "Russian media, both local and in Russia, commonly accuse Latvia of being a fascist state for rewarding pensions to those who helped combat the Soviet Union during World War II and supposedly oppressing the minorities in Latvia by adding Latvian-language lessons to Russian schools, setting a requirement of passing Latvian-language exam to get citizenship (which was seen as unfair by Russian community who moved in as colonists during Soviet times and during those times didn't have to learn Latvian)." is POV. In my point of view Russian media accuse Latvia of being fascist state not for adding Latvian-language lessons to Russians schools (because these lessons where present in these schools during all Soviet occupation) and not for setting a requirement of passing Latvian-language exam to get citizenship (because it seems very fair to me to learn language of new country for some incoming migrant), but for declining citizenship for minorities who born in Latvia during Soviet times. Even more, these declining considered as lies and true meanness by russians, because most of them voted for independece of Latvia in 1991. I will add a link here -- rrr

As far as I understand, the minorities who are born during Soviet times gets citizenship if they passes language exams, as well those who are descendants of local Russians rather than people moved in during Soviet occupation gets citizenship as well. Therefore, the questions are all interlined; and the media uses various reasons to call Latvia a fascist state, the recent declaration that in Russian schools there will be way more lessons taught in Latvian rather than Russian is among them. DeirYassin 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You understand correctly if by "local Russians" you mean "Russians that had citizenship of Latvia before 1940". I do not want to say that these words about fascism or colonists are fully incorrect (or fully correct), but what I do think, that these are not neutral. More objective would be to write something like "Mr. Vilnis Zariņš says, that Latvia was colonized..." or "Russian paper XXX calls Latvia a fascists state, because...". -- rrr

I tried to do a reword that would seem a bit more neutral. If I didn't succeed, people are welcome to revert, but I did try to make it give both sides of the issue without saying which side is "right". I took the reference of "colonialism" out - also if the Russian movement to Latvia resembled colonialism, it's really a pointless word to use here. And a lot of Russians didn't come as "colonialists" but came since the USSR assigned them jobs in Latvia - freedom of movement was limited in the USSR, for everyone. I contemplated adding that (a) those Russians that didn't get citizenship in Latvia are entitled to Russian citizenship, but mostly have not applied - thus Latvian laws do not infringe on the human right for a citizenship (b) that Latvia (and Estonia) has the "best" rights for non-nationals in the World, giving non-nationals full access to state benefit programs and the right to vote in all elections aside from the parliamentary and the presidential election (c) that any Russians that were part of a baltic-wide "card" program that gave their name in support to independence from the USSR got to skip the language test. The "point" of all this was to prevent the countries from being politically steered towards Russia by people that have lived in Latvia for all their lives but that have "in their minds" never made a step outside of Russia. Whereas yes, it does seem fascist at first I suppose, these people would have the right to vote - for Russian elections. In many cases in my experience, a lot of "non-citizens" in Latvia and Estonia ARE way more "suited" to be giving their votes in Russia, just because they have WAY more of a connection to and an overview of the situation in Russia. Just that the Russian goverment is not the goverment that makes the decisions that will be affecting these people - so naturally, there is a dilemma.

This is all very significant for the situation in order for people to not "judge" the Latvians prematurely in this issue, but all way too POV for me to find a good way to put it into the article. And is a bit too detailed for the main article anyways ChiLlBeserker 15:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current version. But rrr, you seem to forget, that my primary quote was the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs[[6]]. I presume that reference makes the world colonization official Latvian policy? The President of Latvia has also used the term 'settlers' [[7]]. A declaration of the Parliament of Latvia used phrases like ... the USSR occupied and annexed the Republic of Latvia; destroyed its constitutional regime; murdered, tortured, and deported hundreds of thousands of its citizens; unlawfully expropriated their property and carried out forced collectivization; persecuted people for their political convictions, religious beliefs and nationality; and attempted to destroy and russify the Latvian national culture by bringing into Latvia hundreds of thousands of USSR citizens ... [[8]] I don't believe that every single Russian came to Latvia in order to destroy the country. The vast majority were probably trying to find a job and an appartment, and the actions taken by the individuals is quite understandable. I hold no moral judgment against individuals. The collective action, however, is another matter, and the blame for that lies in the Kremlin. --Valentinian 22:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"""After independence was gained, there still were two years of battles against German militarists, Russian communists..."""

In 1917-1922 among communists there were representatives of many nationalities of Russian empire. Trotsky is jew, Dzerzhinsky is Pole, Peters is Latvian. Latvians were communists-bolsheviks also. During civil war in Russia 1917-1922 significant part of the Latvian military troops (created during the First world war) battled on the side of bolsheviks (Red Arrows). The bolshevist agencies of state security were headed by Latvians Peters and Latsis.

In 1941-1942 Latvian nationalists (group Arajs) have shot the most part of hundred thousand Latvian Jews.

The truth is unpleasant for Latvian nationalists.

During domination german knights (13-18 centuries), the Latvian language was language for serfs only, there did not live Latvians in Riga. Only in Russia in 19 century the Latvian language and culture became equal with German.

More shortly, in English Wikipedia it is possible to write any nonsense about Russia. Your neutrality is those? It is possible to repeat any antiRussian propaganda cliches, which were created by nazi propagation machine. Russian for you there are people of the second grade, untermenschen Ben-Velvel 15:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Dzerzhinsky (Дзяржынскі) was a Belarusian, not a Pole.

It's noth truth!!! Dzerzinsky was Pole who born in theritory of later Belarus.

Please see your talk page, I've put some questions there about your edits. You should actually try to make neutral edits instead of adopting a pro-Russian or a pro-Latvian stance. All this stuff about treating Russians as untermenschen is political stuff that has no place on Wikipedia. Solver 15:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, try editing the Russia or Soviet Union articles saying that the Soviet Union was horrible or that all Russians are drunkards, you'll see that reverted immediately. So it's not exactly like you can write anything anti-Russian here. I just love this complex that Russia seems to have developed over the last few years. Solver 15:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

At this time (1917-1920) the word Russian already means not the country, but a nationality (Russian empire has already broken up). You cannot write truthful (neutral) article) about Latvia if have forgotten Arajs group or Latvian red riflemen.

Ben-Velvel 16:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Info about Latvian red riflemen http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/068/938.htm (article of encyclopediae)

http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/010/001/254402512.jpg (photo) http://www.museum.ru/C6944 http://www.tassphoto.com/?section=3310_0&date=2004-11-09&offset=420&sessid=6a500ce26c083c989fc8ae85a5555bb9

(photos)

Vatsetis, Berzin, Latsis, Eideman an other communists generals were Latvians Ben-Velvel 16:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

About... It is possible to repeat any antiRussian propaganda cliches, which were created by nazi propagation machine. Russian for you there are people of the second grade, untermenschen... Judging by whether people care about Latvia's improvement, there are ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russians who are wonderful inhabitants of Latvia; likewise, there are ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russians who care only about themselves. It's not Russians, its the Soviet government followed by the Russian government hawking the same propaganda. I have to ask, how much time have you spent in Latvia to see first-hand what it's like there?

And, yes, it's tragic that the Latvian riflemen safeguarded the Kremlin and Lenin and perhaps even saved Bolshevism in its darkest hours (though this may be a bit of an overstatement). Remember Latvian communism was born of the European communist movement, not of Russia's--ultimately most of the Latvian communists' expectations (and Soviet promises of Latvian freedom) were betrayed. Let's see: claim your residence granted you by the Soviets after independence (even if it was someone else's property), retire and receive your state pension--even if you are among the 40,000 retired Soviet/Russian ex-military, the very embodiments of Soviet oppression... I doubt the "great powers" would be as forthcoming as Latvia has been.

Finally, the Holocaust in Latvia has been dealt with widely; but don't play a numbers game which doesn't add up (most part of a hundred thousand Jews); the primary blame lies with the Nazis, but even more with Stalin. Stalin used Jews as scab labor during the first Soviet occupation to replace Latvians--who disappeared or were shot: Stalin set up the Jews for revenge, justified or not, when the German army came through. That dynamic happened all over Eastern Europe and is a topic that still has not been dealt with. Peters 04:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like Mr. peters to substantiate his claims. I read that in several places in Latvia local Jews were all murdered (children including) by local Latvians with no assistance from Nazis. There were Latvian (non Jewish) communists at the time of Soviet intervention. Jews lived in Latvia for a long time prior to Soviet occupation and did much good for Latvia--how come only a year of Soviet occupation turned Latvians so violently pro Nazi (they were met as liberators with flowers) and anti Semitic? And why would a contemporary Latvian claim that Stalin was more at fault for Holocaust than Hitler?

I find it interesting to see the following syntaxes in the same paragraph: "..there were representatives of many nationalities of Russian empire. Trotsky is jew.." and "Latvian Jews" (by Ben-Velvel). So, Trotsky was jew of nationality, but there also exists Latvian Jews? How many different nationalities of jews does exist? Does the term Latvian Russians also exist? How many nationalities of Russians does exist? In other words, why is it still "kosher" to grade people in national ethnicity, even though it is a fact that judaism is not a nationality and jews did not have a country to call their own until 1948? Philaweb 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (sorry, forgot the first time).

There was no policy of assimilations of Latvians. For the communistic internationalist government it was absolute the same who lives and works in Latvia - Russian, Uzbeks or Latvians. In the Soviet Latvia were created the new industrial enterprises, automobile and electrotechnical factories, the food-processing industry, oil pipelines, bulk-oil ports, due to investments of the center. But in Latvia was a deficiency of a labour. (Two hundred thousand Germans have left from independent Latvia, hundred thousand Jews it has been killed in Latvia of times of nazism. And it was the townspeople, qualified employees and workers.) The labour was necessary and has been moved from Russia. (In the same way the turkish labour has been delivered to the Western Germany in 70th years). Yes, Russians wanted to go to Latvia because the Soviet center has defined higher wage level and material supplies in Latvia, than in the central Russia. Today Russian workers are occupied on all large Latvian enterprises. Without Russian workers the Latvian industry will stop. High standard of living in Latvia is also result of work of hundreds thousand Russian workers and engineers.Ben-Velvel 11:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the germans that left, and other "workers" were mostly educated middle-class individuals that were not part of the labor pool. There was not a labor crisis before the soviets came, they created the labor crisis by building up the industry to the point where the labor was defecient.

qlkbz

There were only 62 144 Germans in Latvia (1935 census), so your contention that 200 000 left is patently absurd -- they were resettled as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany (ca. 52 000 had left by December 1939, most of the remainder in 1940/41). Your bias is evident from your failure to mention that the demographic changes that accompanied colonization included mass deportations (15 500 persons on 14 June 1941 and 42 133 persons on 25 March 1949, to name only two black dates).

Much of what the Soviets "created" was actually built on the industrial base that had been developed in independent Latvia (e.g., VEF) -- prior to the occupation, Latvia was approximately as prosperous as Finland -- much of what _was_ freshly created was ecologically and culturally devastating (e.g., the kolkhozes a result of forced collectivization, the hydro-power drowning some of Latvia's most symbolic landscapes but developed despite protests, the Soviet architectural monstrosities blotting out villages and towns). Besides the loss of the Jews (many of whom were deported by the Soviets, too -- not all were murdered in the Holocaust) and the Germans, many Latvians fled West when the Soviets returned -- perhaps 30 000 perished under the Nazi occupation (in addition to ca. 70 000 Latvian Jews). It should be noted that more than half of the Latvians living in the USSR prior to the occupation were arrested, also, and ca. 20 000 were killed.

The contention that it was all the same to the Soviet government whether those living here were Russians, Uzbeks, or Latvians is facile -- the "new Soviet man" was essentially a Russophone, and "internationalism" was modified by Russian nationalism under Stalin; those with "nationalistic tendencies" (often meaning that they merely wished to preserve their language and culture) suffered the most. The intelligentsia was decimated in 1940/41 -- especially teachers and students. The national communists who attempted to make changes in the late 1950s -- to limit colonization and to protect the Latvian language -- were crushed, and by the 1970s the country was well on its way to being wholly russified. See, for instance, "The Letter of the Seventeen Communists" from 1972; in the Ministry of Interior, for example, only one-fifth of the 1500 employees were Latvians, according to the national communists who wrote the letter.

"Now only foreigners, and those Latvians who have spent all their lives in Russia, and came to Latvia only after World War II, are in leading work. Most of them do not speak Latvian at all, or speak it very badly. This is illustrated by the following facts: at the present time the following are working as Secretaries of the Latvian CP CC: CC First Secretary Voss, a Latvian from Russia, who usually does not speak Latvian in public; CC Second Secretary Beluha, a Russian from Russia, who does not understand Latvian; CC Secretary for Propaganda Drizulis, a Latvian from Russia; Secretary for Agriculture Verro, an Estonian from Russia, who does not understand Latvian..." (Andres Küng, A Dream of Freedom -- Four decades of national survival versus Russian imperialism in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania 1940-1980. Cardiff: Boreas, 1981.)

I would note, too, since you mention Uzbeks, that most of the minorities in Latvia (the Poles and Belarusians, for instance) were also russified to a large extent, again as a direct consequence of Soviet policy -- the minority schools were closed soon after Stalin's tanks rolled in. Pēteris Cedriņš 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This article should be article for the encyclopedia, but reminds article from the Latvian right newspaper.

Russia also can make material demands to Latvia. Latvia should pay a part of the external debt of the USSR concerning to the Soviet Latvia. The question on compensation of investments of the Soviet center made in economy of the Soviet Latvia can be considered.Ben-Velvel 11:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

.

USSR didn't "make" former Latvias economy after WW2 since most of manufacturies were located here because of good trading road throw Baltic sea. Although, the needs and qualification of local population were no taken in count, so I can say It was plain USSR fault to make manufacturies there, noone asked for them and mostly guest workers were employed there. You can even see decrement of native population right in the years of the industralization. - 1943. - latvians 81% , russians 9,5 %, polans 2,5% year 1959 - latvians 62%, russians 26%; year 1979 latvians 53%, russians 32 %

Also the monetary demands were never requested from Russia (who says to be USSR heritor although not wanting to keep their bond). They were made practically for statistics. Guest user, IP 80.90.7.52 09.05.06

This article is now a complete shambles. Sorry, but pure fantasy is creeping in -- Ulmanis did not "overthrow" Bļodnieks, and I just deleted that; Ulmanis was the legitimate Prime Minister, and Bļodnieks' government had fallen before the coup, quite democratically.

But that's just a tiny fix -- I don't intend to try to tackle the whole article, but I do hope somebody does. Look at articles for other countries (e.g., Lithuania or Estonia) -- is it really very necessary to focus upon distorted details in a general article with links to further information, like the detailed history (also a pathetic shambles)?

No, it is not, and I would delete misleadingly presented phrases like "those judged as enemies of this state were sent to a concentration camp in Liepāja." The description of the occupation is also quite misleading. --Pēteris Cedriņš 01:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article through once again, I see that the whole history section is pretty much entirely obscene, from the get-go. "Known originally as Livonia, the area that now constitutes Latvia..." Sorry, but Livonia covered only part of Latvia, and "known originally as" is idiotic -- Livonia included a large part of Estonia, too. The whole article is riddled with misinformation and disinformation bordering upon the absurd, and belongs in the trash bin. --Pēteris Cedriņš 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about Ulmanis appears another case of "it's all Ulmanis' fault-itis": that Ulmanis overthrew an active government, practically invited the Red Army in (Ulmanis "agreed"), threw out Kviesis, put all opponents in a concentration camp, and was ultimately "pressured" to resign. In fact, the coup was in response to the complete breakdown of the Latvian government and its inability to form a coalition government (the Blodnieks government was not overthrown, it collapsed)--Ulmanis believed a strong executive was required for Latvia to survive; Kviesis served out his presidency term; Latvia was the only authoritarian state where opponents got jail and nothing else; and Ulmanis refused to sign Soviet orders and was deported to the Soviet Union while Latvia was still technically independent--nothing short of an act of war. Unfortunately I just don't have the time and energy to write a brief history of Latvia right now. Peters 05:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any rose-colored glasses where Ulmanis is concerned--we have friends whose family was jailed for a time under the regime (later released). That said, I rewrote the "it's all Ulmanis' fault" paragraph. Peters 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this sentence accurate: "On March 2, 1934, Blodnieks' government failed and a new governing coalition could not be formed."? I thought Ulmanis government was confirmed by Saeima, so, a new governing coalition was formed. Andris 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A new coalition was indeed formed -- there was not a complete breakdown of government, just another change of government. Furthermore, the plans for the coup were made much earlier, and the crisis was largely precipitated by Ulmanis himself. The Farmers' Union reform project (largely copied from the extreme right) was not a serious proposal for reform, and Ulmanis knew it would be rejected. The excuses for the coup were just that -- excuses, with no real basis (for example, the frequently cited supposed threats to the government from plotters -- it was Ulmanis and his supporters who were the plotters, and they were the only ones capable of a coup). Kviesis was presented with a fait accompli, and he was removed after his term expired -- in the meantime, he had very little say. He violated his oath of office by approving the coup. Latvia was arguably the most authoritarian state in Eastern Europe, preserving nothing of democracy even formally. That Ulmanis was not bloodthirsty can be pointed out, but bloodshed and authoritarianism do not necessarily correlate. As Knuts Skujenieks recently noted, the Ulmanis régime was nothing but a prelude to Soviet totalitarian rule. The issue of the occupation should be kept separate. --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to inform you all here that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. There currently seems to be no Latvians editing the article and in order to get the most neutral viewpoint represantatives from all of related nations are needed. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors watching Latvia-related articles, and I strongly disagree with the name Territorial claims of the Baltic States. It is inherently POV. It can easily be inferred from the name that actual territorial claims exist. While the position of Latvia on Abrene, for example, is that Abrene is territory that was unlawfully taken and incorporated now into Russia, but no official demand has ever been made for the territories to be returned. Solver 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering here, but as I am German myself and not knowledgable that much on these issues, it would be nice if you yourself would watch and edit the article in question and as well say these thoughs in the talk page of that article. Kaiser 747 07:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it could be made more interesting with the perspective that when the Soviet Union invaded and annexed the region, their own documents referred to the region as Latvian--that is, Russia's territorial claims based on the age-old "Russian-ness" of the area are, quite factually, baseless. More information at... [9] Furthermore, it's not the territory that's the issue, it's the acknowledgement of a change in borders which by its very nature confirms continuity of the originally existing Latvian with the current Latvian state. Latvia's claim is not to its territory, but to its continual existence as a single state since 1918. Confirming Latvian continuity would acknowledge Soviet occupation at a minimum, and perhaps its illegality as well. The question is, who's wearing the "donkey's ears?" Peters 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

is a beach about 6km from Riga. I don't remember the name of the exact location, but I do remember having to take a train ride past a lake where people were fishing through the ice. Might it be useful on one of the Latvian pages?Yellowmellow45 12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When I view this page, edit links for sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 all show up together, in the middle of section 7. Does anyone else have this problem and how can one fix it? I am using Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4. Andris 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What size do you have your thumbnail defaults set to? I noticed that when I made mine larger, the page is having problems separating and wrapping secions properly (also Firefox), problem does not appear in IE. If I shrink them down, perhaps I'll see your problem, I'm 99.9% positive I've run into exactly the problem you describe. That said, I've run across web design problems with inconsistencies between Mozilla and IE in handling blocks of text and alignments, and have actually gone back to using tables as a more reliable and cross-browser consistent means of organizing data, along with simple LEFT and RIGHT alignments (as opposed to endless <DIV> sections). IE tends to guarantee the integrity that text WILL appear within the <DIV> within which it is defined, extending the <DIV> to encompass it--even if that guarantee isn't what's specified syntactically. Mozilla does not, and so text and <DIV> sections can get separated and re-aligned in unexpected ways. Peters 00:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Took another look and there it is, all the edits stacked side by side down at the bottom of the pictures. The result of how Mozilla stacks and resolves the multiple right alignments. I might try reorganizing the page to get it to be more cross-browser compatible. Peters 06:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures grouped and floated right as a table, section edits now appear in proper place with both IE and Mozilla. Peters 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think an "Accomplishments" section is inappropriate to an encyclopedia -- but as long as it is there, a note on the recent changes to the constitution definitely does not belong there. The anonymous poster(s) inserting commentary on the constitutional changes should probably place this under the "Politics" header, but the sentence should read something like "Latvia became the first EU country to define marriage as being between a man and a woman in its constitution." If one wants to explain that the changes and the debate surrounding the issue were seen as homophobic by some (myself included), that should be explained in more detail, in NPOV, probably in Politics of Latvia. Note that civil law banned homosexual marriages prior to the constitutional changes, however. The previous attempts to include information on this topic were terribly POV. --Pēteris Cedriņš 12:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the edit by 81.218.77.45 ("Today, Latvia is facing problems with its Russian citizens and has been several times criticized for not granting civil rights to citizens with a Russian background and discrimination of the Russian minority. Latvia has not only been criticized by the Russian government but also by various other countries such as Turkey.")

Firstly, this is POV and inaccurate, e.g., "its Russian citizens"? Surely citizens of Russia are not meant, and ethnic Russians who are citizens of Latvia are probably not meant so much as non-citizens (and citizenship is not based on ethnicity); "problems" is far too vague, and about half of the ethnic Russians are citizens of Latvia... how many have a problem, on what issue(s), etc.? If the problem is citizenship, it has not been a problem for more than 100 000 people who have naturalized, for example. If the problem is opposition to education reform -- the percentage of those opposed to an increase in the use of Latvian in minority schools has declined considerably. Discrimination is against those with "a Russian background," or the non-citizens? What civil rights are being referred to? Latvia meets CoE, OSCE, and EU standards in the area of civil rights; PACE closed the post-monitoring dialogue (over Russia's objections). That there has certainly been some criticism of Latvian policies, primarily from the Russian Federation, is very true -- but a vague reference to "various other countries" is inappropriate (and Turkey, with which Latvia has excellent relations?).

Secondly, this does not belong at the top of this article. The citizenship issue is discussed in Politics of Latvia, the language policy at Latvian language. Both issues probably merit a presence in this main article under "Politics," but a summary should be placed there and should be specific, not merely repeating one-sided accusations. --Pēteris Cedriņš 12:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Latvia, citizenship DOES have a lot to do with ethnicity. I can find no other reason why my younger sister, born in 1999 in an independent Latvia, is not a citizen of Latvia despite having been born there and living there her entire life.

To the person that left the previous comment ("citizenship DOES have a lot to do with ethnicity"), regardless of your parents' citizenship status, all they have to do is ask:

It's not about "ethnicity," as I've stated earlier, more often it's about attitude and choice. Don't blame the Latvian government for a choice your parents have made either through their own action or inaction. This information is easily available to be acted upon. If I've misunderstood your sister's situation, please advise. Pēters 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked the tagger to list some reasons and start the improvement process. Renata 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

ive been to Riga.. tiwce. they had really good жаркое. wonder from who they learned to make it! i hope that that put all this to rest. -Purcitron

Copied from User talk:Efenstor:

Please read the corresponding discussion page, there are many people complaint about the non-encyclopedic approach of the article. I personally can notice many allegations and the ethnic situation statement somewhat reminiscent of Nazi agitation. The main part of the Demographics sub-article consists only of such agitations without any actual description of the demographics, only the numeral data given. The term minority used with Russians is also may be considered non-objective since they are as much as the 29% of the population. If you're a Latvian yourself please try to look at the situation neutrally as a foreign, try to use data from foreign non-politically-interested sources. The articles about the other baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania) which were under the Soviet occupation as well are written much more factually and neutrally, I can recommend to use them as templates. Efenstor 20:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well as for minority, it is very easy: anything less than 50% is a minority. That's simple and plain math math. I don't see any political or any other bias here. What agitations? What do you mean? As you say yourself, there is no description, only a bunch of numbers. How do they "reminiscent of Nazi agitation?" Can you please be more specific? Renata 12:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The term minority doesn't refer to a numerical data. It is all about power. The race that is in charge of the government of a country is majority and the people that have less power are called as minorities. 81.214.45.102 08:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Demographics are not only the ethnic mix alone, read the Estonian demographics section [10] and the article [11] for example, note the objective encyclopedic manner they are written in. There are many places in the article that are too concentrated on the theme of Soviet occupation ignoring many other relevant facts which would be also good to write about in those sections, also the Nazi occupation during WWII is described in a way like Nazis did only good to the people and country which is likely caused by the Fascistic moods dominant in Lativa nowadays. If you suppose that I am not right feel free to remove my warnings but I am sure that people will continue to complain. Efenstor 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I find some of the preceding comments completely baseless ("Fascistic moods dominant in Latvia"?), I do think the article needs considerable revision -- there is a major problem of focus, with some brief periods overly detailed and others omitted entirely. This seems to be the result of choppy argument about "neutrality." I removed the sentence about the supposed indifference of the majority of the population to the Holocaust; that is speculation, and the basis given for it is untrue -- for instance, in 1943 Latvian trade unionists wrote an appeal to the International Federation of Trade Unions that included the following: "The German terrorism was even more ruthless than the Russian had been. We have no exact data about the number of persons executed in and deported from the Baltic states by the Germans. However, according to conservative estimates, from Latvia alone about 10,000 have been executed and some 50,000 deported. Many thousands are imprisoned and interned in concentration camps. Moreover, in all three Baltic countries there have been murdered practically all citizens of Jewish race who lived in the countries at the time when the Germans invaded the Baltic states. Latvia had about 90,000 Jews; perhaps 20,000 of this number escaped with the Russians; in the ghetto of Riga there are now some 3,000 Jews; the rest have been murdered by the Germans. Significantly, the Germans are now spreading the lie that it was the Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians who had killed the Jews." --Pēteris Cedriņš 01:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A note on another phrase in the comments by Efenstor: "try to use data from foreign non-politically-interested sources."

Demographic data comes from the census, registration with the state, naturalization records, etc. Foreign sources usually get their data from these sources. In fact, much of the available data is "foreign," since what is now Latvia was part of the Russian Empire in the 19th C (when the first census cited was taken) and Latvia was occupied by the USSR (and, briefly, by Nazi Germany) 1940-1991. One can cast some doubt on many figures -- the Russian census figures are notoriously distorted, for example, whilst the 1935 census was probably already influenced by the Ulmanis régime. Often, however, no other figures are available -- for the flux of the demographics during the war, for instance, there are records of ration cards and records of school attendance under the Nazis.

Judging from your calumny about those supposed "Fascistic moods dominant in Latvia" and your strange remark about "Nazi agitation," however, you are talking not only about such data but about sources in general. The suggestion that Latvian sources should not be used in articles about Latvia is patently absurd. Regarding the occupation, much of the material comes from Soviet documents, for instance; not a little of the relevant material is reflected only in Latvian sources because the archives are difficult to access (because Russia makes access difficult) and not so many historians work in these areas of research. On pretty much any subject, one must turn to "politically interested" sources -- one cannot write about the Holocaust, for instance, without Nazi documents, testimony from Soviet courts, etc. This is an encyclopedia and we do not do original research; what matters is the prism of the secondary and tertiary sources and how we angle that prism.

The fact is that most of the foreign historiographers who have written on Baltic history do not know a Baltic language, which severely restricts (and quite often cripples) their accounts. Stanley Page, for instance, tried to justify the writing of his book (The Formation of the Baltic States -- Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959) despite that handicap by using... yes, Baltic sources -- i.e., what Balts had written in German, Russian, and English. Thus, in effect, you come back to Latvian sources anyhow -- but to much more limited sources because the author cannot read anything in the national language. In Page's case, the other sources are very often at least as biased as the Latvian nationalists he cites, when not more so -- e.g., Bolshevik newspapers, Baltic German historiography (which was almost entirely devoted to apologias), etc. The POV of Page is also not at all politically "disinterested" -- writing in the 1950s, he is quite convinced that what to him were our accidental, abnormal "pygmy states" were defunct for good, and his emphasis on the Entente's rôle in the Baltics' achievement of independence 1917-20 is greatly exaggerated -- naturally, because most of what he read would urge such a view (it being standard Soviet propaganda that the Baltic republics were artificially created from without as buffer states and nothing more).

There are better foreign books, of course, and I invoke Page's only by way of illustration. Personally, I stopped believing in "unbiased histories" not long after I lost faith in Santa Claus -- Anatol Lieven's The Baltic Revolution is a seminal book, for example (and he is an infinitely better author) -- but Lieven has a very strong and pervasive point of view, to which he is certainly entitled and which he does not try to hide. Not only is there always a greater or lesser political interest in historiography -- any approach to history necessarily requires a point of view.

What you (and some others) hint at, though, is that all Latvian sources share a POV or political interest -- and that couldn't be further from the truth. Latvian histories range from hardcore russophilic Marxist-Leninist claptrap to pseudo-pagan russophobic reactionary garbage -- with most works between these poles, of course, not a few of them valuable and very useful to the Wikipedian. Not only the standard work but the only major work on the Holocaust in Latvia is by a Latvian, for instance -- Andrew (Andrievs) Ezergailis. Leo Dribins, who recently authored a major history of anti-Semitism in Latvia, wrote in Diena ("Divided history," last June) of four primary currents in contemporary Latvian historiography: the Latvian nationalist view, the Russian nationalist view (which reminds him of the Baltic barons' apologias), the slowly disappearing Soviet view, and a fourth view influenced by Western historians and exemplified by scholars like Ezergailis.

I see Irish sources in Wikipedia articles about Ireland, Russian sources in articles about Russia, etc. To suggest that only others can write our history is offensive and is in fact "reminiscent of Nazi agitation" -- the Germans were especially concerned about Latvians teaching the "wrong" history in 1941. --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, German sources about Germany dated back to 1930-1940 paint quite an interesting picture of Germany and its history, you understand what I mean. ;) Though you're generally right, I was only wondered by the style the whole article was written in, it's more belletristic than encyclopedic (again compare with the articles about Estonia and Lithuania). Feel free to remove my warnings, I won't mind, but the artice's style really needs re-working. Efenstor 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think whatever style may have been present in some of the more controversial Latvia-related articles (and that means many articles on history or involving ethnicity, minorities, languages, etc.) gets erased by prolonged revert wars and editorial skirmishes. This article (and the History of Latvia article) should be completely rewritten at this point, in my view -- but it seems a somewhat Sisyphean task as long as some keep trying to edit out fundamental facts (e.g., trying to eliminate references to the occupation)... which is why it is always more constructive if people could point to specifics when challenging something in an article. --Pēteris Cedriņš 09:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The current article is the sad product of POV disputes and reverts over occupation (even that Ulmanis "invited" the Soviets in), etc. etc. Consolidating from prior comments... Occupation: The Russian Duma has passed resolutions that Latvia legally and willingly joined the Soviet Union. This view also appears to be shared by a certain segment of Wikipedia contributors. The facts are--according to the constitution of Latvia which was still in effect at the time of annexation by the Soviet Union--that (a) the annexation was constitutionally illegal, (b) was "requested" by officials "elected" through completely falsified election results (corroborated by Soviet documents) and (c) therefore formed the basis of an occupation which continued until the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ulmanis inviting the Soviets: Subsequent to the coup by Ulmanis and the rightists, Latvia, like the rest of Europe, was a government run by a dictatorship. The terms "bloodless" (true), "benevolent" (value judgement), and others have been used to describe Ulmanis' dictatorship. More recent scholarly works have been less kind to Ulmanis; nevertheless, the living testimony of Latvians old enough at the time to have an adult opinion does also testify to Ulmanis' popularity (though it has been argued that was waning at the time of the coup). At question, also, has been Ulmanis' role in (variously described as) inviting the Soviets in, failing to resist the Soviets, etc. The Baltic pacts of "mutual assistance" were Stalin's gun pointed directly at the Baltic states (Stalin threatened invasion in his own words). An armed resistance was not put up to the subsequent Soviet invasion (under the pretense of doing it under the terms of the "pacts") because it would have only led to Latvian bloodshed. The Ulmanis government continued to try and maintain sovreignty after that, including petitioning Stalin directly after the invasion. Russification: Figures published in "Soviet Latvia" by the Soviet Union indicate that 58% of the population growth from 1959 to 1970 was the result of labor imported from other parts of the Soviet Union. That, together with the steady decline in total number of ethnic Latvians during the occupation, and the rise of ethnic Russians by half a million (from 200,000 to 700,000) is what is referred to by "Russification." (Not to be confused with campaigns of "Russification" carried out under tsarist Russia.) As for calling it a policy of "active" Russification, it is quite fair to observe that incoming Russians found state-built apartments awaiting while native Latvians found themselves deported to Siberia. Soviet propaganda and its perpetuation by the Russian government: Endless repetition of propaganda does not make it any more factual--nor should we underestimate the power of that pervasiveness: ten years after independence a British tourism brochure described Latvia's Freedom Monument as having been built by a Latvian/Baltic people thankful to their liberator Stalin (and that the three stars stood for the three Baltic States). I sympathize with Russian "nationalists" over their angst over loss of empire. For a nation to achieve greatness, it must learn from its past. That is not possible when so much of its political capital is going toward denying the past. I genuinely grieve for Russian "nationalists" that don't have a vision of Russian greatness that recognizes the past for what it is and moves into the future. --Pēters 18:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief note -- I didn't mean to excise your analysis of Ulmanis completely, but was trying for a quick fix for the section. I will try to do a complete revision in the next few days, with separate brief paragraphs divided as follows: (1) early history (prior to the conquest), (2) German rule, (3) Polish and Swedish rule, (4) Tsarist rule - the First Awakening - the New Current and 1905, (5) WWI (incl. Riflemen) - the Second Awakening - Iskolat, German puppet state, the Republic, (6) the parliamentary period, (7) the coup and the authoritarian period, (8) the "mutual assistance pact," Baltic German "repatriation," the occupation, the terror and deportations, (9) Nazi rule, the Holocaust, the Legion, the refugees, the Central Committee (10) reoccupation and Soviet rule - national communism, Russification, industrialization, collectivization, resistance, recognition, etc., (11) the Third Awakening and the restoration of independence, (12) Latvia today - CoE, NATO, EU. --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken on excising. Hashing out differing views made the history section far too Ulmanis-heavy. —Pēters 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I completed a major expansion and revision of the "History" section today (sharpen your knives...). I condensed it several times, but it is rather difficult to sensibly condense it further -- since Latvia was part of various countries and entities prior to 1920, it is a very complex summary to attempt. I will be expanding and revising the "History of Latvia" article in the near future, and will try to add stubs for the red links here (sources and references for this section will be added to that article). I am leaving the neutrality tag up for this section, though most of the material is new, until people have a chance to react -- I do hope that editors will try to consider the form of the entire section when editing, consider the other articles to which much of this text is hyperlinked, and if possible debate constructively here at the talk page. I assume that we can now remove the neutrality tag from the "Demographics" section? --Pēteris Cedriņš 21:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that the history section is quite unreadable... It has a lot of detail that are not really neccessary for an overview. Also, you cite a bunch of numbers (eg 945 people shot in 1940) and don't show sources. I don't know who wrote history section of Lithuania, but s/he is genius! I think it is pretty close to awesome - easy to read, highlighting main points without any gruesome detail. Yes, it is ommiting large chunks of history and can be accused of oversimplifying, but it is an overview. Renata 04:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I find myself having to respectfully, but completely, disagree about readability. Latvia's history is far more complex than Lithuania in terms of who did what and when within the boundaries of that tiny expanse of territory. Honestly, I was impressed that it's as condensed as it is. With less detail and fewer statistics it would be reduced to a litany of who controlled what chunk of territory when. As it is, Napoleon didn't make the cut—and there's still a 19th century monument standing in Riga today dedicated to one of his officers. I'm extremely happy with the new history section. An overview should be able to stand on its own in terms of a critical mass of factual completeness. —Pēters 03:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you mind if I put my deletionist hand on it? :) It will take me some (most likely, more than some) time but I promise to do my best and come up with something more "flowing." And my objections are more about the language and sentence flow than content. However, language and flow is very much influenced by the content... Renata 05:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at all if you put your "deletionist" hand on it -- that's what we're here for, and the article does need work -- but I do hope you give it a deeper reading before you do so, Renata. I compared quite a few countries' histories (on the country pages rather than in the history articles), and they actually vary considerably in style, approach, and focus. I'm afraid I am not at all impressed with Lithuania's; this is an encyclopedia, not a superficial brochure. I already edited out masses of material and chose what to retain quite carefully -- I stressed some elements of social history, for example, because they are essential to understanding what led to the major currents -- socialism (1905, the Iskolat, the agrarian reform) and nationalism (the nation-state, which is in one sense the central subject of the article ["the Republic of Latvia"]). All of this takes place against a background of foreign power, to which it is most often a reaction. Then there is the problem of maintaining "NPOV" without weaseling or watering down the history, especially as one can rather predict some of what will happen -- last night's anonymous edit is an example. Edits focusing on the non-citizen and/or Russian issue will doubtless continue to be made, and that is what led to the gross imbalance in the previous version of this history -- we end up with certain areas in distorted detail, and so I have attempted to condense other detail to give a better picture. As Pēters pointed out, even Napoleon didn't make the cut (perceptive, since I put the great little man in and took him out a few times...). Quite a lot of things didn't make the cut, and I would actually suggest further expansion rather than condensation. If one looks at Huntington's (in)famous book (not that I agree with most of it), a line between civilizations runs along Latvia's eastern border. The same line bisects Ukraine. The fact is that he was too kind -- the line actually passes through Latvia, too, and this country faces both east and west (more to the west at the moment, of course). Though this is obviously not the place for theory, any article on history is going to take certain approaches, and the facts we choose to include or omit are going to affect the picture dramatically. With the, er, climate of editing in Latvia-related articles, making generalizations one might otherwise allow oneself is not possible -- one can only stress major details (another thing that didn't make the cut, for example -- the ethnic composition of the 1941 and 1949 deportations). Then there is the simple need to include many things so that there are links to the main topics/entities. I strongly disagree with your first revision, for example; you deleted the geographical position of the tribes. Part of the point of the article as I structured it is to show the very different position of the regions, which were often under different powers -- the Latgalians in the east, for instance, were later separated from the rest of Latvia (remaining in Poland-Lithuania and being incorporated into Vitebsk guberniya, not the Baltic provinces, which had a dramatic effect on this region). The tribes gave their names to the later political entities in regions that shifted. So, in summary -- I wish your deletionist hand well... but don't be surprised if my hand follows! --Pēteris Cedriņš 10:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it's a deal :) But I have to say that a lot of problems with the article could be solved with good maps... Like that one with tribes. I know a thing or two about Latvia and still found myself completely confused over the tribes territory. If I wanted to unconfuse myself I would have to click on tribe name and its location name. Plus I have to make a distinction of Finnic and Baltic. So that's already a bunch of extra clicks and I am only on the first para! Now if you put a map on... everything is solved :) Renata 14:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A history of Latvia in maps was published several years ago (in Latvian in Latvia). It took a whole book just to capture who was where and when. I wish you well in attempts to simplify without evisceration :-) but even maps would be better served in the history article, again, because of the sheer volume involved. Pēteris' (original) revision is already greatly curtailed in scope even with respect to major events in Latvia's history. —Pēters 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this Latvia article page. Every time I try to open this page my Opera browser stop to work. This page contain something which obstruct that browser. I do not know what that is (some image perhaps?), but it should be removed because other Wikipedia users who use this browser would have same problem (they would not be able to open the page). PANONIAN (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't used Opera in a while, I'll install the latest copy and check the page. —Pēters 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I loaded the page in Opera and it hung after loading all the text and 17 of the images. I logged in with my preferred skin, and it worked OK. I set my skin to the default, and the page still loaded, but took a VERY LONG time. Finally, I went to the HTML et al. consortium site (www.w3.org) and ran an HTML verification against "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia", which would (99.99% certainly) produce browser output using the default Wiki skin, since the request is being submitted from another server and not my PC. It identified a HTML markup error:

Error Line 271 column 71: end tag for "table" which is not finished.

...llspacing="0" border="0" align="right"></table . . . . . missing closing ">" character

If you look at the page source itself, it uses Wiki tags to generate tables—there are no hand-coded tables. That makes it a Wiki problem, not a problem with anything that can be edited in the page itself. It appears Opera may be sensitive to this HTML syntax problem. Perhaps someone knows how to report this? (Hope this helps!) —Pēters 04:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed in Mozilla, the pictures overlap the table of counties. A defective </table> tag would certainly explain it. If I have the energy, I'll hand-code the table syntax and remove the Wiki table shorthand. —Pēters 02:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hand-coded the table in the problem section, please leave a comment if that fixes your problem in Opera! —Pēters 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, problem is still there. I opened the page with Internet Explorer and it also have some problems with opening (it was too slow). PANONIAN (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I used Opera to read the page, it loaded text and 31/32 images, then waited about 20 seconds, then finished. Which Wiki skin are you using, I'll try and test that. —Pēters 00:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what Wiki skin is. Where can I see which one I use? PANONIAN (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Haven't checked comments in quite a while. Under "My Preferences" if you go to "My Page" you will see a number of set up choices (your displayed name, etc.), look for the choice called "Skin" - that will ofer a number of choices, "Classic" being what you're used to. I use "Cologne Blue". —Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have condensed the sentence on citizenship added in the last edit by 217.199.114.162 [12]; who needs visas to travel in the EU is not determined by Latvia (non-citizens do not need a visa for Denmark, for example, and non-citizens can apply for EU residency since last month). Non-citizens cannot vote in most countries, and the civil service requirements are a detail that does not belong in the history section. The aliens' passports and other information are already in the Demographics section and so are repetitive here. I would suggest adding a short citizenship section to the article, or writing an article on citizenship and linking to it -- perhaps that would be the best way to avoid edit wars on this subject. --Pēteris Cedriņš 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've observed widespread misreporting in the press on the actual numbers of ethnic Russian Latvian citizens/non-citizens, perhaps the best place for details on numbers of citizens/non-citizens, the current citizenship process, etc., might be on the Demographics of Latvia page? —Pēters 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; it's my impression, though, that some editors are intent on placing this type of information on the main Latvia page. The actual numbers of ethnic Russians and of non-citizens are already on the main page, under "Demographics," as well as a note on their aliens' passports; 217.199.114.162 wanted to include information on the differences between citizens and non-citizens, and I don't think such detail belongs in the "History" section -- expansion of some detail would require expansion of other detail for balance, in my opinion (e.g, I had already cut the fact that children born after August 1991 do not need to naturalize, just as I did not include information on the referendum that led to liberalization or note that KGBeshniks cannot naturalize, etc.), and the differences between citizens and permanent residents are far too numerous to list on the main page. Some countries do have separate articles on citizenship, e.g. Swiss citizenship, Canadian nationality law. The situation in Latvia certainly merits such an article, which should also include some background; I wouldn't mind this being included in Demographics of Latvia, except that one should be careful not to confuse nationality with ethnicity and the page could become unwieldly -- comments, especially from those adding the "interesting facts," would be appreciated. Adding a "Latvian Citizenship" article and a "Citizenship" section to the main article would permit some separation of the two subjects, and part of my suggestion is to urge that those editors who keep adding "interesting facts" consider the issues in a wider scope; similarly, the discussion of language policy in Latvia is sorely lacking if asymmetrical bilingualism and the post-imperialistic language situation [13] are not treated -- one cannot simply pick a few facts that give the impression of discrimination and avoid the larger issues from which these policies spring. The best way to solve these disagreements is by expanding the information presented; detail without context can be POV. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think these debates belong either to demographics article or to their own article. All depends on how much you want do and how deep you want to dig. Main Latvia article should only have a link to the more elaborate articles on those matters. Renata 20:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I found this map and I wonder if it is accurate. What would you say if a similar map would be created for this article? Renata 20:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be very nice (my only quibble would be that there is no reason for these maps not to show the actual extent of the tribes' territories in what is now Lithuania and Russia, the current borders superimposed). --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to show Livonians and that is a bit wierd - only possible mistake I can see is that other maps show that Livonians lived in all area around the bay, but this map shows Semigalians in a part of that area (around Lielupe) -- Xil/talk 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Though there are lots of things to correct in this article, I have started from one small an obvious thing. Lativa was never occupied by the Soviet Union because Military occupation means that Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. Which means that Latvia should be at least in war with the USSR. However, Latvia was never at war with the Soviet Union. Besides, on June 17 when additional troops (according to the Pact of October 5, 1939) entered Latvia, Ulmanis talked to the nation by radio saying : "Stay on your places and I'll stay on my" and calming Latvians that Soviet troops are friends (meaning of the word "friend" is opposite to "hostile" :)). However, to be NPOV, I must represent both points of view - historial and Latvian. According to Latvian point of view, the dislocation of additional Soviet Troops according to the signed treathy is the beginning of the Occupation. ( So, to be logical, we must confess that Latvia was occupied by NATO on 2004 (because the situation was identical - Latvia signed treathy according to which NATO has rights to place some troops on Latvian territory) :) ) . However, NPOV is NPOV and we must respect that, so I mentioned both points of view, and even added the results of election of pro-Soviet government that is strange and should morally support POV of Pēteris Cedriņš and Co. However, to be Neutral, we must admit that of course those elections are strange... as well as referendum about joining the EU ( in which third of Latvian residenst have no rights to vote (I mean non-citizens), elections in Ukraine, Georgia and in many other US puppet stat...oops sorry, independent democratic states :). But it is completely another story.

So, after you read all that, you should understand why I have edited this article adding text:

On October 5, 1939 Latvia signed with the Soviet Union "Pact of mutual aid" according to which the Soviet Union had rights to dislocate some troops on Latvian territory. Due to Ulmanis's anticommunist rhitorics according to Finnish war and some political steps (e.g. forming "Baltic Antanta"), the USSR strongly insited on "forming new government that could honestly do the terms of the Pact", and, as the guarantee to that, the USSR dislocated additional forces on June 17, 1940 . This is considered in the official version of history in Latvia as the beginning of occupation. Then the elections took place in which won "Worker's block" won taking 96% of votes. The new government was formed on July 21 , 1940. On August 5, 1940 Latvia became a member of the Soviet Union and was renamed to Latvian SSR.

I have reverted your edit. The occupation qua occupation is accepted historical fact, and Wikipedia already has articles on the Occupation of the Baltic Republics and the Occupation of Latvia. The summary of history on this page is condensed, and there is no place here for this POV argument -- the elections were rigged and so do not deserve mention except as a sham, the mutual assistance pacts were imposed under threat, etc. --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, you pretend to be the highest judge here and the disition of what would be

written here is your prerogative. Then I must admit that your behavior has nothing in common with Wiki's NPOV politics. You are just like authoritarist Ulmanis. Your rhitorical speeches like "The occupation qua occupation is accepted historical fact" is nothing but lie, because "occupation" of Baltic states was never accepted as historical fact. The legistimation of incorporation in the USSR was confessed on Jalta's conference, and noone even during Cold War tried even suggest that there was occupation. "the elections were rigged and so do not deserve mention except as a sham, the mutual assistance pacts were imposed under threat, etc" it is YOUR POV, that has nothing in common with the truth. Because 1)you have no proofs to those words 2)same thing happened in late 80th-early 90th and happens till today. According to all mentioned, I revert your edit and I am going to continue doing that unless you confess elementary things or prove your position with facts. User:Liberators

Don't you think that there is a slight difference if 1.) Latvia it self ask to join NATO or if 2.) USSR make ultimatum, which is later satisfited ? Also there are many evidences that election results were fabricated in USSR and unfullfilable demands were made to other parties that wished to participite in said elections -- Xil/talk 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference. The government that forced Latvia to join NATO was pro-American, and being in NATO doesn't correspond to the interests of Latvian people. Unlike the pro-Soviet government who incorporated Latvia in USSR, after which sequenced industrialization an rise of the living level. What about falsification - yes, maybe there were falsifications, but it is normal practice of so-called democratic regimes(firstly, the USA) until even today. The Soviet Union was not first and was not last in that meaning. User:Liberators

Realy ? I always have thought that being in NATO correspond very well to Latvian interests. I'd rather would doubt being in EU. How can you alone judge what is best for Latvian people ? -- Xil/talk 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not consider myself "the highest judge here," User:Liberators. These questions have been discussed in detail by many users on not a few talk pages, and the facts are given in detail at articles like Occupation of the Baltic Republics and Occupation of Latvia. Numerous detailed studies of the occupation can easily be found, such as Albert N. Tarulis' Soviet Policy Toward the Baltic States: 1918-1940, University of Notre Dame Press, 1959.

See standard references for their summaries, e.g., The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2005: "Soviet pressure forced Latvia to grant (1939) the USSR several naval and military bases; a subsequent Latvian-German agreement provided for the transfer of the German minority to Germany. Soviet troops occupied Latvia in 1940, and subsequent elections held under Soviet auspices resulted in the absorption of Latvia into the USSR as a constituent republic. Occupied (1941-44) during World War II by German troops, whom the Latvians supported, it was reconquered by the Soviet Union." [14] Note the use of the words forced, occupied, and reconquered.

During the Cold War, most Western governments did not recognize the annexation de jure; the US applied the Stimson Doctrine of non-recognition of international territorial changes effected by force. You write that "no one even during the Cold War tried to suggest that there was occupation," and that is completely untrue. See, for example, the January 13, 1983 resolution of the European Parliament "condemning the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral states by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 pursuant to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact [...] the Soviet annexation of the three Baltic states has still not been formally recognised by most European states and the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of Baltic states." [15] or the Council of Europe resolution from September 29, 1960 on "the twentieth anniversary of the military occupation of the three European states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union [recognizing that] that this illegal annexation was accomplished without the free voluntary expression of the Baltic peoples." [16]

NPOV does not require parroting Stalinist lies about the "liberation" of Latvia any more than NPOV requires legitimizing Germany being attacked by Poland from Hitler's POV -- treating the Soviet fiction, the rigged elections, and different interpretations (including the current attitude of the Russian Foreign Ministry) is important, but this section is merely a summary. That is why I suggested that you bring up your material in the detailed articles -- the fact is, though, that you are merely providing what you call "the official version of history in Latvia as the beginning of occupation"; i.e., the Stalinist version. Even the USSR itself declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact invalid in 1989. It is not a matter of there being two views, "historical and Latvian," sorry -- it is a matter of Soviet historiography vs. historical fact. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That history section is very long in comparison with other sections, are you sure that it should ? -- Xil/talk 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I compared quite a few of the history sections at different country articles; they vary considerably in form and length. I condensed it as much as I could, but with Latvia not having existed as a state until 1918-20, there's a lot to cover in a patchwork; maybe it would be best to break it into sections (like the history section at Germany), except that not keeping it strictly chronological actually helped shorten it (the regions have to be treated separately at different points in time, etc.). The other reason I wrote it this way is that I anticipate a lot of edits like today's -- I would cut it by making more general statements here and there, but because Latvian history is so controversial, I know very well that generalizations will be challenged, often by editors adding yet more material, often in more detail, making it longer again (that's what happened with Ulmanis and the occupation). So I did the best I could with these things in mind. --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe your idea to split it in sections is best thing to do - it seems that POV wars are about WWII history and all other parts of that section are of good quality. Anyway my point was that other sections are too short in comparison with history - we should try to expand them rather than history -- Xil/talk 13:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Latvia is a wonderful and beautiful nation. What negative events that occured in its past history, are now irrelevant,precipitant,and vexatious. Many Latvians after World War 2, chose to make Australia their home. They are excellent citizens, and their contribution of Latvian culture has enriched Australia's society and heritage. Citizens of Latvia, like the rest of us, must now move forward Best wishes from Richard Nicholas in Australia (The Land of Oz.)

Just seen Latvia page and some un-intelligent, un-educated, useless, sad and i suspect loney (due to the nature of his or her comments, lets put it this way they were not mainstream) fool had vandalised it. I have just done my best to repair the damage, sorry for any mistakes!!!

Jon, London, UK - 9th May 2006

The text about the Latvian Song Festivals is inaccurate. In addition to the grammar and spelling mistakes, it asserts that 30,000,000 people-- 30 million people-- participate in the song festival. It is referenced to a page that pegs that number at 13,000 singers plus dancers etc. Perhaps 30,000 is closer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.166 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you notice a mistake you are welcome to correct it. Speaking about culture section - is Eurovision realy so noteworthy to mark it out ? It was important event, but it lasted only three days - no other article on country (that has hosted this event) as far I've seen doesn't even mention it, maybe it should be merged in somehow, or we could list international events that Latvia has hosted in Accomplishments section -- Xil/talk 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am very puzzled about the song festival next being on 22 April 2006! There was no song festival in April 2006 and there is certainly no requirement of all latvian including tourists to attend a meeting - I live in Riga and certainly nobody I know had any knowledge of any meeting!!!!

Am I allowed to simmply delete that bit as being untrue?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.136.203 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, be bold, it's wiki. Renata 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Next Latvian festival is in 2008, it's always in the summer but I don't know the exact dates. Next festival outside Latvia is in 2007. I updated the pertinent text (and took out the part about mandatory attendance!). Pēters 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The second para in that article, which doesn't really stand well on it's own and is afd, could perhaps be mentioned here as this seems a better place to cover such discrimination *if* it is true as per the BBC link included.

"The rights of ethnic minorities are guaranteed in the EU, provided that these minorities are not ethnically Russian. The Russian minorities in the Baltic States (and even majorities, as in Riga) are devoid of the voting rigths, have no passports and are persecuted in various ways.[17]"

Obviously the tone of the above is hostile but that doesn't prevent a reword if the essential issue of citienship is valid Alci12 12:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT true. Please read the article. It doesn't state that Russions have no voting rights. It states that some person X and another person Y of Russian ethnic background have no voting rights, that's it. I live in Latvia. Ethnical russians do have voting rights and passports. The article in no place states ANYTHING about passports. --Kirils 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly calm down, capitalised shouting is not called for.

Didn't do so. Just emphasized the point - LIKE THIS. :) --Kirils 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Italics would have been fine and less open to misinterpretation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alci12 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link states that russians/russian speakers have to take a citizenship test, even though it states further down that some were born in the country, in order to becomes citizens and vote. So while Russians living there for 50 years cannont vote (without a test) newcomers can vote after 6 months. On the face of this that is discriminatory and would merit inclusion. As to passports, if your not a citizen you presumably can't get a passport, so it is implicit. Alci12 16:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that most of them have to take a test, before they can vote, but that is clear that "Russian minorities [..] are devoid of the voting rigths" is a false statement, since one can actually take the test and get voting rights. Sorry, but you are wrong about passports. In Latvia a non-citizen can get a passport.[18] Still they have to pay, to get the passport (no test here). And citizens have to pay too. --Kirils 23:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well fine so the link is partly right and partly wrong. It does still seem that obsticles are put in the way of Russians (or those of russian decent) in voting. 20% of the pop being non-citizens is high by any standards. The main article should at least mention and perhaps comment upon this. Alci12 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The main article currently states: "Controversial language and citizenship laws (Latvian is the sole official language and citizenship was not automatically extended to those who arrived during the Soviet era or their descendants) have been opposed by many Russophones. Though many residents are naturalizing since the law was liberalized, almost 18.5% of the inhabitants remain non-citizens today." With respect to the BBC article, while Angus Roxburgh is a respected journalist, it would appear he came to Latvia with an axe to grind, as he spent his time giving an open platform to people like Zdanoka—someone who looked to maintain Soviet control, and now cloaks their polarizing pro-Russian agenda in Russophone "human rights"—and really no time with anyone who could be called moderate or progressive on either side of the issue. The number of non-citizens has been decreasing; a (slim) majority of Latvian Russians are now citizens. For the real Zdanoka (what she writes/represents about situations to the EU and counterpoint by other politicians pointing out her ommissions and lies) see here —Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Serously discussing an opinion piece, as a source to substantiate claims about discrimination based on ethnic origin in Latvia? I can't believe this is even taking place... Alci12, there is nothing legally discriminatory--on the face or substantially--in a requirement that alien domiciled or born in a certain country aquires citizenship by naturalisation,--in accordance with rules set by a host country. Please simply read up on "jus sanguinis" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis . Latvian citizenship law is based on a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli; no respected international body advances a claim that Latvian rules concerning citizenship are at variance with Latvia's international obligations. Anyone making such a claim has not made an effort to gather information and understand the issue, or is motivated by some ulterior motives. Doc15071969 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, enough Latvians, it really is time to end the stupid section of Accomplishments. Within a week I will delete it myself. Not only is it stupid but also wrong. For example the minox part.

Give me a very good reason why should you have such a un-encyclopedia-like section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.95.199 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

time up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.152.252 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a balanced view needs to be presented but Latvians today have to battle Russians who see Latvia as their land and Latvians as their people. This is NOT the case. Many say that Latvians voted in the communists in 1940 but the facts will reveal the TRUE nature of these elections. My grandmother was there so can tell you what really happened. The communists entered and took the Latvian President Ulmars captive. He made a radio announcement to all Latvians saying that no one should go anywhere but stay in their homes because the Russians were there to help. He then went missing never to be seen again. The communists then held an election were the ONLY party available to vote for was the communists. If you didn't vote they took your name and you either dissapeared (ie were killed or taken to Siberia). So if this is considered a free election then Russians obviously have a weird concept of freedom.

Latvia is a proud country and people. Yes their history is mixed, they have been involved in some horrible things. But now they want freedom and the right to govern themselves and have their own language and culture maintained. Russians should also admit their past mistakes and let by-gones be by-gones. Russians also have a mixed history with Mongolian domination etc etc.

Lets be realistic here. Russians do have a part in Latvia, but remember it is Latvia still, not Russia. Just as Australia does not become Italian because there is a large number of Italian immigrants in that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.165.247 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True that Latvia belongs to Latvian's and should have always been so, including during the time of serfdom. True that Latvia is not Russia, but the fact also remains that ethnic Russians do live in Latvia, and are indeed Latvian Citizens, and should be seen as Latvian Citizens. If they choose not to apply for citizenship, it is their own personal choice. (My father's family was orignially from Latvia, but already lived in Spain, and didn't return to Latvia after the Soviet Occupation, until the first visit in 1989, my first visit 3 years ago. They emigrated to the USA, where I was born and grew up.) I had the pleasure to make the aquaintance of two Russian speaking Latvian exchange students studying here in Klagenfurt, Austria. One of Russian and I believe Ukrainian background, the other of Russian and Latvian background. I practiced my Latvian with them, both eager to help me, although the full ethnic "Russian" didn't always know the vocabulary. (I have also met Russian speakers in Riga, who spoke poorer Latvian than mine, and I have never spent more than two months in the country, nor taken real courses.) I remember the excitment the two displayed upon showing me they had tickets to see Latvia playing in Hockey in Innsbruck, and it became clear to me that these young women are just as Latvian as my father is American! (although I wouldn't have said the same for my Omi, who now rests in Rainu Kapi, 73 years after leaving her home country, and whose Spanish was even better than her English, maybe even her Russian) Latvia is not as much of a so-called Mixing Pot, but none-the-less it has to work on a common future with its citizens, helping them to become proud to be part of the country they live in, without taking away their ties to their heritage. Latvia was metaphorically as well as literally raped by the Soviet Union, but we can only learn from our history, and make way for a better tomorrow, in cultural tolerance and unity. Ramzis 16:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Ramzis

I feel that the picture from Districts of Latvia should be placed into the main Latvia article, with the corresponding districts labeled. As a result the current photographs that are in the administrative division section will be shuffled around or removed from the article (In my opinion, if they are important enough, they will justify an article themselves. Thus, no substantial loss will be occur if they are replaced.) Overall, I think that including the picture from Districts of Latvia will move the Latvia article closer towards obtaining a bronze star. All the other bronze star country documents contain a picture of the districts with a list of the corresponding names. I will attempt to do this over the next couple of days, but if someone beats me to it, that's fine too. b_cubed 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed it around. The only problem I ran into was the Abrene District. It wasn't mentioned on Districts of Latvia and I honestly don't have enough knowledge about Latvia's geography to figure out what to do with the Abrene District. Someone needs to rewrite the section about the Abrene District and take it out of bulleted form. b_cubed 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was rereading the article again and I noticed that in the religion section it mentions that Lutherans are in the majority yet, the picture in the religious section shows an Old believers church. It just seems odd to me that the Old Believers church is being shown, instead of a Lutheran church? Opinions? b_cubed 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The entering of Soviet forces in the country in 1940 could not be called an "occupation" as there's not been a war between the two country. Red Army enters forcibly, after an ultimatum, but in accordance with the alliance pact between the two countries. 212.116.151.110 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As I replied to your similar post in the discussion in the Occupation of Latvia article, your premise that "there was no war" and therefore, according international law, Latvia could not have been "occupied" is completely false. As has been noted elsewhere, the earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV: Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." A formally declared state of war is not required. If the hostile army controls the territory—meaning, the sovereign institutions of the occupied territory are no longer in control, then this criterion for "occupation" has been met.

Specifically with regard to "entering in accordance with the alliance pact," that is true ONLY for the initial stationing of Soviet troops within Latvia directly following the signing by all three Baltic States of their "mutual assistance pacts" with the Soviet Union, albeit under (1) the explicitly stated threat of invasion and (2) the subsequently demonstrated threat of invasion when the Soviet Union attacked Finland, which had refused to sign a similar "assistance" pact. The subsequent justifications and events under which the Soviet Union deemed it necessary to invade the Baltics in order to protect itself were complete fabrications. Therefore, the Soviet Union cannot be considered to have "legally" occupied Latvia under the terms of the mutual assistance pact.

Additionally, after the forcible occupation, the Soviet Union deported Latvian citizens to Soviet territory while Latvia was still a sovereign country even by the account of the Soviet Union, constituting a blatant act of war. Both deportation from occupied territory of its civilian population and the transfer of the occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory have been specifically clarified as grave breeches of the Geneva Convention.

Whatever your reasons for wishing to believe that the Soviet Union's presence in Latvia was "legal," they are fully disproven by the objective and incontrovertible facts. Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto "For Fatherland and Freedom"? A Google search yields mainly Wikipedia mirrors and sites about the LNNK political party. Pruneau^talk 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"For Fatherland and Freedom" ("Tēvzemei un Brīvībai") is the inscription on the Freedom Monument in Rīga. A book published by the Freedom Monument Committee about the monument itself (facsimile here, in Latvian) in 1935 goes to great lengths to discuss the various themes of the monument and notes that the front is (to be) inscribed "Tēvu Zemei un Brīvībai" (the "Tēvu Zemei" being later contracted to the single word "Tēvzemei"). There is no further discussion as to the phrase's origin or the decision to place it on the monument, so I would say that the motto originated with the Freedom Monument. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my question was not clear. I actually meant to ask for a reference showing that the motto is still in use nowadays. I couldn't find any reference that "For Fatherland and Freedom" is the official motto of Latvia: it isn't mentioned in the constitution, nor is it used on the coat of arms, the coins or the banknotes, as far as I can tell. Pruneau^talk 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Tēvzemei un brīvībai," as already discussed, appears on the Freedom Monument.

The motto of the Union of Latvian Officers (military) is: "Savam godam, latvju slavai, Tēvzemei un brīvībai." That is, "For my honor, for Latvian renown, for Fatherland and freedom."

The "sources" would be:

• the motto is on the Freedom Monument, which is the national symbol of freedom; there is no other phrase inscribed on the monument; the monument and motto together form the complete "symbol";
• the motto has also been adopted as the culminating phrase of an official motto of the Latvian military.

The phrase "Tēvzemei un brīvībai" was proposed for use on the monument by poet and committee member Kārlis Skalbe, and so was not a motto as such until inscribed on the monument and the monument adopted as the country's symbol of freedom. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

the Eastern Europe article where that fucktard is defining what he PERSONALLY thinks eastern europe is, is just an utter piece of crap so i typed latvia is a northern european country (with a nice relevant link leading to a nice UN map not some bullshit fucktardery) i dunno maybe it's worth consideration

1) UN defines it as a country in the region of Northern Europe

2) the major religion is being lutheran (at least the most prevalent roughly speaking excluding just Latgale)

3) it's vigorously towards Western Europe and America politically.. like the NATO and EU

4) saxons sweeds livonians and whatnot have had a MAJOR impact on the language (again except the catholic latgale where they have their own language very much influenced by the poles and russians)

blah blah

well then some cons

1) maltreating gays what concerns legislation, lately

2) pretty large russian minority (i don't know if this counts but i think yea it does!)well that's pretty much all of it, i think

but actually i don't quite get why am i typing this anyway cause this wikipedia thing fails completely when it comes to politics or something like that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.9.136 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i added the Livonian name for Latvia in the parentheses for the native names of the respective country,since Livonians actually are native to Latvia,well yea the language isn't used anymore,but anyway Latvians highly regard anything that has to do something with Livonians..so yeah,if you want to remove it,please substantiate why.

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Latvia's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Latvia deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state, and is now spamming this message on every talk page. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Latvia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Latvia. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed these:

• "Attitudes of the Major Soviet Nationalities—Latvia and the Latvians", by Frederic Harned, M.I.T. Center for International Studies; pub. 1973. Published online by Latvians.com.
• "Brīvības Piemineklis" (The Freedom Monument), by Jānis Siliņš, an artistic and cultural review of the monument; published by the Freedom Monument Committee, 1935. Published online by Latvians.com.
• "Lāčplēsis" (Bearslayer), by Andrejs Pumpurs translated by Arthur Cropley; pub. 2005.
• "Latvia—Our Dream is Coming True", by Vilis Lācis; an example of Soviet propaganda; pub. 1959. Published online by Latvians.com.
• "Latviešu Trimdinieka Kalendārs—1947" (The Latvian Exile's Calendar 1947), facsimile and some translations; published during the "Displaced Persons" camps period after WWII, 1946. Published online by Latvians.com.
• "The Story of Latvia-A Historical Survey", by Arveds Švābe; a history of Latvia from Balts inhabiting what is now western Russia through the Soviet occupation of WWII; pub. Stockholm, 1949. Published online by Latvians.com.
• "These Names Accuse—Nominal List of Latvians Deported to Soviet Russia", by the Latvian National Foundation; the circumstances leading up to and including the Soviet occupation and deportations of 1940-1941 and list of those deported (list itself not reproduced); second edition, pub. Stockholm, 1982. Published online by Latvians.com.

They are not directly related to subject (this article for exemple doesn't mention Lāčplēsis and there is only a picture of Freedom Monument) and almost all of them link to latvians.com - isn't one link to page enough ? - however these are great resources that could be (should be; are) used on other articles ---- Xil/talk 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion (at least for me) for what exactly is meant in a few spots under the bullets beneath Economy. I am not sure what is meant by "concurrency" in this instance and I tried to clean up the others as best as possible but without knowing what was intended, it is little more than an educated shot in the dark. Any help would be appreciated. 128.194.5.139 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a False friend, someone apparently has transfered Latvian directly to English, if you have any other problems just ask -- Xil/talk 16:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The National Library of Latvia exposes some great posters via The European Library. You can find these at http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/Latvia/treasures_en.xml I am looking the most appropriate location to tell about / refer to this wonderful material - they really tell an interesting story about art and cultural movements in Latvia. All suggestions are welcome.... Thanks, Fleurstigter 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the culture section of this article fit ?---- Xil/talk 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try ... Fleurstigter 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)