Talk:History of Latvia

message: There is no mention of the Yalta Agreement anywhere in this article. It is significant matter in the recorded history of LATVIA post 1945 that requires mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.231.231 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Yalta 

message: I think the word "genocide" referring to the actions of the Soviet Union in Latvia must be removed from the article. During Stalin's rule a lot of people of a number of other nationalities suffered, were repressed and executed including Russians, Ukranians, Jews, Latvians and many others.
--Shakura 22:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genocide is total or partial extermination of distinct groups of people for racial, relegious or political reasons, therefore soviet genocide was genocide - it was aimed against non-prolietar groups of society - such as rich farmers and nobility and it was done in name of communism and that is political reason -- Xil - talk 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That example is misleading. Latvians did not deport russians to Syberia. Rather vice versa. Soviet genocide driven by Stalin is a fact and was also directed towards russians and other etnic groups. We all know about the existance of special KGB instructions. To deny this is would be a crime. 88.147.19.76 16:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Soviet genocide 

message: :On May 1, 2004 Latvia became a member of the European Union. It had taken millions of lats in pro-EU advertising (instead of analysis and wider discussion), last-minute tampering with the country's constitution by politicians as well as availing of the domino effect in order to scrape together a "yes" vote in the membership referendum - notably contradicting some reports that "Latvia [and Estonia] voted overwhelmingly yes". It is debated whether the so-called partial giving up of sovereignty and neutrality is outweighed by benefits of being in the EU.
It doesn't seem to me that these are proper NPOV statements, there's a strong anti-EU POV here.GhePeU 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem POV, it only shows the controversy but does not seem to push one side or the other. --Lysytalk 15:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks NPOV. --Kirils 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's blatantly POV and should be removed. There was plenty of analysis and debate, and sore losers could write such a thing about many a vote in many a country. Pēteris Cedriņš 08:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you specify what do you consider to be POV here ? It does not claim that joining the EU was disadvantageous to Latvia, but instead mentions that different POVs on this exist. It's not for wikipedia editors to judge which of the POVs is more correct. --Lysytalk 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire passage is POV -- "last-minute tampering" is not an objective description of a legislative process, there was anti-EU advertising as well as pro-EU advertising, there was copious analysis and discussion for those who cared to take an interest, debates on "neutrality" (which "neutrality" did not exist prior to EU acession anyhow; Latvia was involved in military co-operation with Western countries even prior to NATO entry, which preceded EU entry) were mostly confined to the political fringe. I have no objection to noting that there was/is opposition to EU membership, but this passage obviously attempts to suggest that the referendum lacked legitimacy. That is untrue -- the turnout was 72,5%, and 67% voted "jā." Pēteris Cedriņš 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, the statement above is POV. M.K. 12:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, goverment didn't seem to be disscusing any other option,they were scearing people that Latvia will be unprotected and hinting that Russia will attack us, basicly givin impresion that there is no other choise, advertisments were made by one of the most reputable advertisment agencies in country, and constitution is amended yearly. However this statment is loud and unsorced it should either be deleted or rewriten to show that there is different oppinion. Politika.lv is, in my opinion, example of good sorce (their EU referendum archive) -- Xil/talk 19:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EU membership

message: The first to recognise Latvia's independence was the Russian SFSR (on August 11, 1920), which relinquished authority over the Latvian nation and claims to Latvian territory once and for all times. I'd have thought that Poles who helped Latvians during the Battle of Daugavpils would be the first to recognize their independence? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is a frequently misquoted fact.  Russia was the first major power to recognise Latvia's independece.  Frequently people quote this without adding the words 'major power'.  Disco 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I changed it.  The reason is that none of the major powers wanted to get on the wrong side of Russia.  So they waited until Russia had given the all clear, then they supported the Baltics. Disco 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iceland was the first to recognize Latvia's independence. (perhaps before the Soviet Union, or Russia) Officially the United States, England and several other nations did not recognize the forced occupation of Latvia, this making no difference whatsoever, the latter remaining occupied for 50 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.115.83.22 (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Soviet first to recongize?

message: The description of the sequence of events of the first Soviet invasion was a complete mess. Corrected. Also changed Ezergailis to a real inline ref and added total Holocaust deaths, which was missing from the discussion.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Perhaps You might find this usefull http://www.apollo.lv/portal/life/2135 ---- Xil/talk 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: resources

message: Just adjusted the content tree to make the different periods appear more evident and ready for expansions.
I was actually quite surprised how little Latvian independence is covered with this article - not mentioning a main standalone article on the years inbetween the world wars, which is certainly missing. The 200 years of Russian Empire has a very lean section, I have added some headers of topics that would be of significance to Latvian history as well. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make this article even better! 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/latvia.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: , your change has been reverted so therefore please discuss your proposed change on talk per WP:BRD. An inbox is intended as a summary overview of the entire article. Adding a former country inbox into subsections of this article makes no sense, since Latvia has gone through numerous states since History of Latvia#German period (1207–1561) and placing a dozen former country inboxes into the article would clutter it up. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former country infobox 

message: Substituted at 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Latvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622113922/http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/msr/Ethno/dategen1.html to http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/msr/Ethno/dategen1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Latvia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822143207/http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207 to http://www.ksk.edu.ee/file.php?ID=1207
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The paragraph was extremely confused, e.g., contained mistakenly overlapping times. Also, the linguistic sentence had been complete nonsense, copied from Mallory, who had misunderstood the late Prof. Schmid (whom I knew personally).HJJHolm (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neolithic Age, 5000–3500 BC 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Saules akmens no Ranka dambja 07.09.2003.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* Riga Fernsehturm 05.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Riga Fernsehturm Blick von der Aussichtsplattform auf die Akademie der Wissenschaften.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Noted Albert didn't actually found it. Sorry about edit summary cut short, didn't have Latvian keyboard anabled (alt-S saved). Bishopric was transferred to Riga from Ikšķile. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riga 

message: This whole article is a bit of a mess, and is in serious need of higher quality citations and general rewrites for clarity. I am drawing attention especially to the prehistory section, however, as it's ridiculously sloppy for any Wikipedia national history page; the entire Bronze Age subsection ("1800 BC – 500 BC") is straight up missing, there are only two sources (one of which now links to a redirect page) cited for the whole section, and it's riddled with outdated or contradictory information. 
On that last point, the text of the Neolithic subsection states that the inhabitants of Latvia during the Narva culture era were Finnic and predated the presumed arrival of the Balts which, as the citation needed tag points out, is completely backwards according to our modern understanding. Genetic evidence indicates the people of the Narva culture predated both Uralic and Indo-European speakers, and recent scholarship indicates that Bronze Age Uralic speakers most likely arrived after the 1st millennium BCE, which is congruent with existing genetic evidence. The subsection should be updated to reflect this. Foom of Weaseldorf (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework needed (especially prehistory section)