Talk:Latvia

Disproportionate amount of pro-Jewish content

"See also: Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940, Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, The Holocaust in Latvia, Latvian partisans, and Latvian resistance movement"

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

Isn't Template:citations needed an overkill ?

I doubt the usefulness of having this tag - there are 80 inline citations, which may be not enough given the lenght of the article, still some sections are underreferenced while others are fine. I think this tag won't encourage anyone to fix the article and is confusing being placed right above lead full of references. I propose to remove it and consider more specific section tags where needed:

1. Lead - this is the only section where you can't pace mores specific tag, still, it appears to be well referenced (aside from questionable etymology), besides lead should summerize facts detailed and cited elsewhere in the article
2. History - allready riddled with inline {{fact}} tags
3. Government and politics - this short section and its susection has only one ref, so there is a room for improvement, still there is no imidiate need to cite well known facts
4. Military - the first section to have no references what so ever
5. Administrative divisions - the second section to have no references what so ever
6. Geography - only one reference, most facts, however, are common knowedge
7. Latvia's national trees, bird, flower and insect - There is one reference, yet, to my kowledge, it should be where all statements in this section come from
8. Economy - it is refereced, though not all facts in it appear to be cited
9. Demographics - partialy cited, has inline {{fact}} tags for most uncited facts, the laguage subsection has no references, while education section has references for every sentence
10. Culture and arts - also partialy cited and has {{fact}} atgs
11. International rankings - it appears that all facts are cited

So even though referencing is uneven there are only two major sections with no references, those that have very few reffereces mosty list wel known facts or in fact are based on a single reference, but elsewhere, where there are more citations already, more specific tags have been applied. So I suggest to remove the tag and to tag the two sections with no references instead ~~Xil (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Latvian literature

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

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

 ??????????

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

Not to be confused with Latium.

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

The most popular sport in Latvia was (is) Bobsleigh

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

Human rights section

Seems Latvia is the only country article that has "Human rights" as a sub-section, apart from Estonia, seems undue in comparison so I have removed it. --Nug (talk)

this is not a comparative article it is about a single country. Nug should feel free to suggest improvements in other articles but he is not free to use his personal POV to erase well-sourced material (based on its own article) -- human rights issues are very important in 21st century). Rjensen (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks, you do not know what my "personal POV" is. No other country article has such a section which indicates an implicit standard style. It may be well sourced but it seems WP:UNDUE in that Latvia is being singled out here. This section never existed when this was a featured article[1], it fact it was added relatively recently[2]. Note this same user added a sourced Human Rights section to other articles (for example here) which have been promptly removed[3]. This has no place here. --Nug (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Erasing sourced material raises serious questions about the editor's POV. The "Undue" rule does not apply (it refers to giving too much attention to a a minor or fringe viewpoint in contrast to the main viewpoint.) The issue is whether this is important fully sourced material regarding Latvia, and it seems to be so. Nug has raised no substantive objections. Yes this article singles out Latvia, that is the topic. If Latvia gets fuller more thorough coverage than other countries, so much the better for readers studying Latvia. Rjensen (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Rjensen continues to assume bad faith by focusing upon an editor's alledged POV. The text under question is balanced with two viewpoints, i.e. Latvia both complies and doesn't comply with human rights norms, thus it is neutral and its removal does not change the balance of the topic what so ever. The issue is that articles are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of facts and this article is approaching 100k in size. No other article on a western country has this information derived from primary sources, which in any case would change from year to year as agencies publish and update their reports. --Nug (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Saules Akmens no Vansu tilta.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saules Akmens no Vansu tilta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)