Talk:Latvia/Archive 1

message: As per the Latvian government's schedule of national holidays:
#January 1 (New Year's Day)
#April 14 and 17, 2006 (Good Friday and Easter Monday)
#May 1 (Labor Day)
#May 4 (Independence Proclamation Day)
#June 23 and June 24 (Midsummer "Ligo" Holiday)
#November 18 (Independence Day)
#December 25 and 26 (Christmas)
#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)
thread_title: Dates of Independence

message: 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)
thread_title:  Latvian monetary demands to Russia. Not seriously 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Very serious revision necessary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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...  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)
thread_title:  Please take part in the improval of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Snow covered beach near Riga 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Marriage amendment in "Accomplishments" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Major Revision of History Section

message: I have condensed the sentence on citizenship added in the last edit by 217.199.114.162 ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citizenship section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tribes map question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, be bold, it's wiki. Renata 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.185.129 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture Section

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Approve Balanced view but not Pro-Russian propoganda 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Districts of Latvia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the region 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't the culture section of this article fit ?---- Xil/talk 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave it a try ... Fleurstigter 15:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art