Talk:Russians in Latvia

message: Please someone who have time edit that part which states that in Latvia Russians are "refugees". They are here are Russian nazy stile genocide against neighboor countries to kill of minority languages and their culture.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.169.21.160 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why there is pro-russian interpretation? 

message: It seems this article was written by some of Latvian neo-nazy (most of Latvians are, Hitler is their national hero). It does not mention that Russian is completely banned in Latvia, it's a crime to teach or learn Russian. This is just shows how typical wikipedia is then it goes about Russians - maybe you should consider renaming it to Der Sturmer.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Latvian neo-nazy (most of Latvians are, Hitler is their national hero)","It does not mention that Russian is completely banned in Latvia, it's a crime to teach or learn Russian" - Talking about lies. Last time i got nearly beaten up by Russians in Riga when they learned where i am from and i don't speak russian. Please add the link here for discussion since this topic is very polluted by Kremlin funded sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.236.129.5 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely anti-Russian article 

message: The other article focuses more on the Soviet era through contemporary while this rewrite so far still has to deal with Latvia's first independence. I would like to have some more time to work on this article and see where it winds up before looking at a merge. (In principle, I agree, I just don't think we're ready—I'll be glad to do the merge after this article is "done.") —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with other article

message: I fail to see the reason for the elimination (identity already emerging at the end of the 19th century) with the comment that "Russians would have not known what Latvia was before 1917." Latvia was one of the prime industrial centers of the Russian Empire, for example, accounting for one fourth of the industrial output of the entire country in metal fabrication. Yes, one fourth. The ports of Latvia together out-shipped any other port in the empire, and even on its own Riga was not far behind St. Petersburg in total tonnage. Russians were very clear on what Latvia was and what Riga was as the capital of the Latvian province. If a better argument is not presented than the ignorance of Russians regarding where they were living--considering I provided Russian-related references that supported the orignal statement in the article--I will be reverting (and would expect a discussion here first, next time). —Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian "identity" as Latvian minority

message: Apologies, I've had a lot of personal stuff going on (like job hunting, alas) and have been away from Wiki so have not had a chance to continue rewrite. I put back an earlier edit of demographics which someone had removed, which is that Latvians declined in absolute #'s as well as %-age of population during Soviet control, that is, total Latvians prior to first Soviet occupation as compared to Latvians at restition of independence. That verbage was based on reviewing the raw numbers. Pēters 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: As a former Latvian native, the following sentence in the section 'Current situation' is particularly puzzling for me: "Russians settled mostly in larger cities because initially smaller towns were less safe for them because of local resistance..." What period of time and which towns and what sort of resistance is this sentence refering to? This is the first time I have heard anything like this. Please provide sources if you can (I am right now tempted to plaster every other sentence in that section with 'fact' tags since they refer to concrete events and dates but no supporting evidence is given). If no one can come up with this in the next few weeks, perhaps this oddity should be removed, as I think it not only implies small-town Latvians are racist (well, some people might agree, but this has generally not been my experience), but also gives a very misleading picture of Russians who settled in Latvia. Moonshiner 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A particular quote

message: Removed some incorrect facts lacking sources and one incorrect fact having a Russia-based source. IMHO to keep POV out it is important to prove facts by sources from democratic countries who aren't particularily interested in the matter. The article should be more objective now. If something in my edit is unnecessary, it can be reversed if the claims made in the previous version are proved by trustworthy sources, but I doubt they can. Regards 62.85.116.101 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: The reemigration (to Russia) section which appeared after the merge with the other article seems quite speculative as compares to the rest of the (original) section. Implication is that droves have left for Russia (as opposed to left, for example, for the U.S. or elsewhere), and a host of other problems. Minimally needs a serious reorganization if not simple removal. Data I have read is that even with the Latvian government making subsidies available (as much as 2,000 lats or $4,000) to assist families wishing to emigrate to Russia, there have been virtually no takers. —PētersV (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did find some materials on emigration, higher at start to CIS, then tails off and to 50:50 CIS and elsewhere. Will work on citations and numbers later. Tone (I'm reading as official policy was to drive select people out based on ethnicity) will need work as well. (Traveling until end of year.) —PētersV (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current, "reemigration" 

message: I will likely restore most of the text removed. Certainly no Wikipedian who knows me would accuse me of having a soft spot for tsarist or Soviet policies with regard to Latvia, however, the removal of the text regarding common interests and the tsar's eventual restoration of Baltic German hegemony makes it appear it was only about Russification. The Latvian Russians of that time were in no way associated with the tsar's Russification policy. PētersV <SMALL>      TALK</SMALL> 12:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National awakening/Russification 

message: This source is currently used to prove that 'These initial conditions have been since relaxed, and Latvia currently has one of the most liberal Citizenship Laws in Europe'. The source seems to be a now-defunct collection of several news pieces and comments. As such it's hardly a reliable source by itself and  I couldn't find the original source of this assertion there as well. So I propose to remove the 'one of the most liberal' part of the sentence until more reliable sources are found. Alæxis¿question? 20:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. (And not one of mine, I should add.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: What is the reason for removing this sourced info from the article? Nanobear (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't caling someone nazi POV, even if it is sourced? There are plenty of sources confirming that one of the former Latvian prime ministers is a pig, yet we don't say his pig on Wikipedia. And with all due reapect - what has information on human rights to do with history of Russians in Latvia? I doubt you would include that bit if this guy wasn't a nazi, but just a homophobic like one of the previous holders of the position ~~Xil (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the Nazi part being removed. But can we at least restore the sources? It is unacceptable to remove the sources and replace them with a citation needed -tag. Nanobear (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is unacceptable to call a Latvian Legion member a "Nazi". The Latvian Legion did not swear allegiance to Germany or Nazi organization or ideals. The Latvian Legion wore Latvian flags under their uniforms hoping for the day they can expel the forces of both Nazi Germany and the USSR. The Latvian Legion were not the "Waffen SS" convicted and Nuremburg as the Russian Federation contends in position papers filed with the United Nations and appearing on their embassy sites, they were stationed as guards at Nuremberg. I left a request for citation for the call for expulsion of Russians in the party platform, which I have not been able to find yet, which is is the only thing having anything to do with the current situation of Russians in Latvia. Nor have I found any article which glorifies Nazis, these are little more than partisan accusations having nothing to do with the subject matter of the article. That is not an invitation to state "Russian sources accuse XYZ of being a Nazi." This is a history article regarding Russians, not a soapbox for editors to synthesize WP:BLP violations calling people Nazis, to blame Russians for sovietization (at the opposite extreme), etc., etc., etc. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Normaly I would agrre that source should be left alone, however I suggest party's political views be verified with their website rather than independent source - "deportation" is crime against humanity, doubt it is on their agenda. Also I would opt for paraghraph being removed altogether - I misread first that this is parlamentary work group dealing with human rights, this however is a group awarding citizenship for special merits - it hardly has any impact on Russian community ~~Xil (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced info 

message: I scanned my copy of Рижский Вестник ("Riga Herald") from 1869, issue #22, and added. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting back to history 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I removed the lines: "Another fact that, Russians in Latvia feel quite "easier" and "friendlier", as the result of massive Russification at the past, unlike Lithuania and Estonia which they considered "unfriendly" toward Russians. Due to the limitation of Russian rights in Estonia and Lithuania, the Russians can only found themselves in Latvia where the country doesn't have much limitation against Russians and Russian language." 
Firstly this claimed 'fact' has no references and secondly it's written in such poor English as to be incomprehensible. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced, badly written text 

message: According to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox should . The towns you added are not even mentioned as having significant Russian populations in the article. Also, your addition is unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks for letting me know. JorkaSSS (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towns with significant populations