Talk:Latvian euro coins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Latvia and the euro)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contradiction[edit]

See Talk:Euro#Contradiction.

Values[edit]

I noticed, while editing Freedom Monument article (which mentions that the monument is going to be featured on euro coins) that one of its sources states that the monument is going to be featured on one euro, not two euro coin. Quick Google search gave only few results, all but one stating that a maiden is going to be featured on 2 euro coin, monument on one euro. Only site stating it vice versa is that of Bank of Latvia, I find that site quite confusing, so I could find only one page were these values are given. The Bank of Latvia should be reliable source and I don't know were else I could check, so I won't change it, but please be aware of this matter, if you work with this article -- Xil/talk 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Latvian 50, 20 and 10 cent coin design.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Latvian 50, 20 and 10 cent coin design.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Latvian 5, 2 and 1 cent coin design.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Latvian 5, 2 and 1 cent coin design.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Latvia €2 Coin[edit]

are you sure of the €2 design? The official website of the central bank of Latvia says the 1 and 2 euro will have a common design and the images are also there http://www.bank.lv/eng/main/all/sapinfo/coin_genesis/

--Melitikus (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what they changed it to. Is there a picture anywhere of the original design that they had to drop because it didn't the official Euro standards? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Latvia and the Maastricht criteria[edit]

Danish Expert's claim that "Latvia as of 31 December 2012 only complied with 4 out of 5 convergence criteria (due to exceeding the reference value limit for long-term interest rates at the time), but as of 31 January 2013 indeed complied with all 5 euro convergence criteria." contradicts statements made by the PM in February 2013: "We have met the Maastricht criteria since September 2012 and will continue to adhere sustainably to the target figures in the future." This WP:OR claim shouldn't be added to the article unless it is backed by WP:RS. TDL (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously DPA made either a typo mistake or a citing mistake, because what they should have been writing when citing the PM was: "We have met the Maastricht inflation criteria since September 2012, and will continue to adhere sustainably to the target figures in the future." I have to say your stubborn resistance against that we publish the highly reliable official Eurostat data, and make our objective conclusion on the basis of that, is utterly wrong. These objective Eurostat data show, that Latvia indeed since September 2012 have complied with the Maastricht inflation criteria. BUT LATVIA DID STILL NOT COMPLY WITH INTEREST RATE CRITERIA + DEFICIT CRITERIA. According to the latest ECB convergence report from May 2012, Latvia at that point of time did not comply with the deficit criteria and inflation criteria. As you already know the deficit+debt data remain to be the same for an entire year, so based on that alone your low quality reference is incorrect when claiming Latvia has complied with all Maastricht criteria since September 2012. Compliance on the deficit+debt criteria is always measured for the last full calendar year, meaning that for a country to comply with this in Sep-Dec 2012, it will need to be their official 2011 national account data granting the country a compliance with those two criteria. You should really know by now, that I have closely monitored how the Eurostat data and Reference value limits evolved since January 2012. These stats and convergence compliance checks have been reported at monthly intervals by our article's euro convergence template. Based on that you will find full verification for my written sentence. It is time that we start to trust objective facts from Eurostat a little bit higher, than what a stuppid/inaccurate single journalist write in his article (according to what he think he heard as a non-expert when interviewing the PM in a noisy cafeteria). Danish Expert (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
And I have to say that your stubborn insistence that wikipedia should be obliged to publish your WP:Original research is completely inappropriate. While you might believe that you're a more WP:Reliable source than the Prime Minister of the country, it's doubtful that this is general consensus of the wikipedia community. You can tell the PM what he should have said, speculate that he was misquoted, or claim that anyone who disagrees with you is "stuppid/inaccurate", but such claims are far from "obvious" as you suggest.
Firstly, there must be an awful lot of "stuppid/inaccurate" journalists:
"According to Latvia's Finance Ministry, the Maastricht Criteria were met in September 2012."
"The country has been fulfilling the Maastricht criteria since September 2012."
Secondly, you can read the PM's exact words yourself (sans noisy cafeteria and "stuppid/inaccurate" journalists): "...since last autumn Latvia has been fulfilling all the Maastricht criteria.". Or how about the Bank of Latvia/Ministry of Finance, which claim that they met all the criteria in October 2012: pg 22. Are these "low quallity reference"s? Are they a "stuppid/inaccurate single journalist"s?
You've made mistakes in the past, so it's entirely plausible that your OR is mistaken in this case. But "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." You should really understand this by now. Until you can find a source to suppport your speculation, it doesn't belong in the article. TDL (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, that you have now established it was not the journalist who made a mistake. This however still doesnt make the reported words correct. It is evident the Latvian PM and/or Finance Minister either made a minor speaking mistake (forgetting to say the one word "inflation"), or was briefed by a person/report who accidently forgot to include the small word ("inflation") in the disputed line. In this particular case I am able to proof my point. For a start you can just take a look at the recorded Reference values in 2012, which clearly proofs my claim that Latvia did not comply with the interest rate criteria for applications/checks conducted in May-December 2012 (although it indeed as a curiousity indeed narrowly complied with this specific criteria in the convergence check conducted in April 2012 - as also displayed by the official ECB report - but there was definately no interest rate compliance during May-December 2012). That is a fact! If any journalist ask the Latvian Central Bank chief about wether or not my written line above (that the first month Latvia ever managed to comply simultaniously with all 5 convergence criteria was: January 2013) is correct or wrong, you can savely bet $1 million he will say my line was absolutely correct, and that the other reported story is not correct. It is however a fact (as I also stated above) that Latvia since September 2012 continously have complied with the Maastricht inflation criteria. They however did not comply with the Maastricht interest rate criteria throughout Sep-Dec.2012! Danish Expert (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, so what you're suggesting is the the Prime Minister of Latvia is wrong. The Finance Ministry of Latvia is wrong. The Bank of Latvia is wrong. Multiple journalists are wrong. Everybody is wrong except for you. And yet strangely, you can't find a single secondary source to back up your POV. Do you not see how ridiculous this claim is? Unfortunately, it seems that the problem stems from your miscalculation of the reference values. You claim that the interest rate reference value was 3.63% at the end of October 2012. However, if we ask the Bank of Latvia, they claim it was 6.2%, which is less than the 5% recorded by Latvia.
PS: I'll accept PayPal for the $1 million. TDL (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The investor presentation you linked to is flawed/tweaked, and does not comply with how reference values are calculated and compliance checks are conducted by the official ECB method. First of all you are not allowed to use "forecasted 2012 fiscal figures" when doing a check in October 2012. I can proof this fact to you, by showcasing how previous ECB convergence reports handled this matter when conducted in the Autumn of the year + How the original EMI reports outlined that fiscal data compliance shall always be checked based on the country's official data for the last full calendar year. In the Latvian investor presentation, you should also pay attention to the fact that they have refered to the reference value as "Estimated Maastricht Criteria" (which mean their estimation potentially can be subject for dispute and disagreement, compared to if they had written "ECB Maastricht Criteria"). If you compare with the Eurostat data I posted, you can see the reference value calculation that I personally did (in full accordance with the official ECB method), is equal to the one the Latvian Central Bank did for HICP, but that we clearly have a disagreement about the reference value for "interest rates". If you calculate backwards, then you will find the significant difference is, that the Latvian central bank unilateraly has decided to declare that Ireland by the end of October 2012 suddenly was no longer to be considered an "interest outlier" (as they previously were by ECB in the official April 2012 ECB report). This mean that the Latvian Central Bank by the end of October got this flawed result for the interest rate reference value (based on Ireland+Sweden, and not only Sweden): (6.83+1.63)/2+2 = 6.23 ~ 6.2.
By the end of October 2012, Ireland however had its 12m-average long term interest rates measured to be 2.59% above the eurozone average, which we clearly have an ECB precedense for will qualify for the country to be regarded as being above the threshold (max. 2.0%), for when ECB will define and treat the country as an "outlier" (not to be included in the calculation of the reference value). The partial decision by the Latvian Central Bank to claim Ireland was not an "interest rate outlier" by the end of October 2012, really strives against the official ECB method and its precedense excercised in the previous published convergence reports. It is scientifically incorrect, and a partial attempt to present the data situation based on their own political opinion.
To be frank, I think it is important Wikipedia is impartial and reflect the objective truth. One of us (or one of our readers) should definately attempt to contact both ECB and the Latvian Central Bank to seek clarification on wether or not it is really correct, that Ireland should not be considered as an interest rate benchmark outlier for calculation of the "interest rate reference value" during the period May 2012 until December 2012 (which we believe strives against the precedence excercised by: Not only the latest ECB convergence report published in May 2012 but also by all previously published ECB convergence reports). The second question would of course also be if it is correct that ECB in 2012 changed their "fiscal data compliance check method", so that it is now suddenly allowed during a year to use "forecasted fiscal data for the ongoing incomplete year", instead of the previous practise only to use "official recorded fiscal data for the last full calendar year". I am positively sure, that if they are confronted with this last question, then they have to admit that it was incorrect (according to the official ECB method) to publish "forecasted data for the ongoing incomplete year" in any documents showcasing the Latvian convergence compliance as it looked by the end of October 2012. I am also positively sure, that if they are confronted with my "interest rate reference value question", then they will also have to admit they did a mistake, as Ireland (just like they were in the official ECB report in April 2012) indeed also should be continously treated as an "interest rate outlier" troughout May-December 2012, and hence that the Latvian Central Bank's "estimated Maactrict criteria values (by the end of October 2012)" was incorrect in regards of the claimed 6.2% interest rate reference value applying for that month. I will of course now slowly work, to further proof and document my findings. Please have patience - it will all take time - and I have limited time resources. For a start I can promise you that all of my published data and claims - both in the article and here at the talkpage - are absolutely correct. My first move, will now be to start searching the web for additional references to back my claims. Danish Expert (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
References that proof Latvia did not comply with the interest rate criterion in June-Dec. 2012:
  • Swedbank's convergence compliance check for Latvia (published 1 Aug 2012): Fulfilling the Maastricht criteria?
    At page 12 in the above report, Swedbank writes: "If the interest rate reference value was calculated as of 30 June 2012, neither Latvia nor Lithuania would fulfil it (since Ireland and Greece would be excluded from calculation of the benchmark as outliers, and only Sweden considered)." As further documented by my attached notes in the articles wikitable displaying Latvia's monthly convergence in 2012, this particulair "interest rate outlier" situation continued throughout July-December 2012, based on the fact that Greece+Ireland during this time continued to have a 12m-average of long-term interest rates being more than 2.0% above the GDP-weighted average in the eurozone.
References that proof Latvia did not comply with the fiscal criterion throughout Jan-Dec.2012:
(as this would have required compliance of its 2011 fiscal data)
I think the above references (in combination with my reply above) are sufficient enough to proof, that it is 100% correct Latvia's first month of full compliance with all euro adoption criteria only happened in January 2013 (with data as of 31 Jan 2013), and not in September 2012 as has been falsely claimed by the Latvian Central Bank chief. Thus, I will now reinstate the previously listed data for Latvia's compliance with the euro adoption criteria by the end of each month in 2012, according to how it is depicted when using the objective data provided by Eurostat and the officially written "ECB method" for euro convergence compliance checks. Danish Expert (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
No, sources from a decade ago don't "proof" that Latvia didn't meet the criteria in October. You've just posted pages of WP:OR. I've explained this to you countless times. Why you can't understand this simple policy is beyond me. You say that "the Latvian central bank unilateraly has decided to declare that Ireland by the end of October 2012 suddenly was no longer to be considered an "interest outlier"". This is the crux of the issue. You've "unilaterally" declared that they are an outlier. You've got no sources for this decision. Please stop WP:DISRUPTing wikipedia and posting your OR to the article. TDL (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
On the same line, I could also claim your continued removal of my primary source data from Eurostat, that objectively measures compliance with the euro adoption criteria is WP:DISRUPTing wikipedia. If you stoped for a second, and took time to read the ECB method and related treaty article, you will find that it indeed fully support my claim that the fiscal criteria is always evaluated by ECB on the same lines being applied to figure out if the country has an open ongoing EDP, meaning a country will always need to comply with its data for the last full calendar year. Latvia througout 2012 still had an open ongoing EDP due to its 2011 fiscal data exceeding the limits and convergence criteria. Based on this alone, it has now been established and proofed, that Latvia did not comply with the fiscal criteria in Jan-Dec.2012. Thus I have fully proofed to you, that the claim from the Latvian Central Bank chief about full Latvian compliance in Sep-Dec. 2012 indeed was false. I am baffled you do not seem to understand, that my uploaded data contribution actually is improving the quality of our article, as it help to display all the objective stats for Latvia in 2012. Instead of removing it, you should let it stay, and then as an introduction to the data table you could add the line, that the Latvian Central Bank chief indicated full compliance with the criteria since Sep.2012 based on his personal belief that Ireland through that period should be classified as an interest rate outlier, while he also opted to ignore the rule for how compliance with fiscal criteria is always assesed by ECB. That would really be helpfull, instead of just ignoring and removing the facts.
Please allow me to improve the article with the uploaded objective Eurostat data, and stop removing it for whatever reason. At your request, I will of course now start searching for additional sources to clarify wether or not Ireland should or should not be classified as interest rate outlier in Sep-Dec.2012, as you are correct to claim this is still an uncertainty we need to search for additional sources to clarify. In my point of view, it is however very helpfull towards the readers, that we show and highlight the discrepancy between the "Latvian central bank chief's opinion" and the "previous precedense excersized by the ECB method", in order at least to explain we here have a discrepency or uncertainty if you like, so that journalists can start to interview both the Latvian central bank chief and ECB about the matter, in order to help us clarify who is right and who is wrong. If the Latvian central bank chief indeed received a message from ECB that Ireland as of Sep.2012 no longer was assesed to be an outlier, then we still need a reference/proof for this indeed to be the case. Potentially (and most likely) it could also in this case be a flawed assesment of the Eurostat data made by the Latvian central bank chief. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
According to my reply above, I have now reinstated the Eurostat data but now also written 2 introduction parapgraphs highlighting the discrepancy between the ECB method as listed by the table with official Eurostat data and the recently published Investor Presentation from the Latvian Central Bank. Meaning a full explanation is now inluded for: 1) The uncertainty about whether or not Ireland should have been classified as "outlier" in Sep-Dec.2012, 2) That the ECB method's compliance check clearly proofed a non-compliance for Latvia throughout all assement months in 2012, and that Latvia only will begin to comply with the fiscal criteria at the very moment when we entered a new 2013 calendar year (moving from 2011 data to 2012 data). Finally I also noted the official compliance with all criteria in any case now await publication of the ECB report, which again currently awaits Eurostat's publication of final 2012 fiscal data (which will be released 22 April 2013). Danish Expert (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Might I point out that this article is about coins - little shiny circular things made of metal, not convergence criteria? First of all this content at such length is not appropriate for the article. And secondly the claims are not properly referenced. You do not take data and evaluate them according to ECB method, ECB does its own evaluation. You do not claim Latvian Bank is wrong, you find a source saying that. And so on ~~Xil (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is both about coins and the compliance with euro adoption criteria. If you think it is excessive, then feel free to creat a dedicated subarticle entitled Latvia and the euro, just as we currently have the similar Poland and the euro. You should not just delete the info. As noted by the introduction paragraph the listed Eurostat data indeed is indicative and not final. For as long as this is noted ahead of the table, it is okay to keep the data as the reader has been notified it is only providing a highly reliable indication of whether or not the country complied during the past "assement months". We are allowed to compile and list such data according to WP:CALC for as long as we follow a specificly referenced and described data method (which has been delivered by ECB as part of their previously published convergence reports). I invite you to put an CN tag behind any of the introduction lines where you think it is needed, and then I am sure we will indeed be able to dig out such references within a short while. For a start, the referenced articles from Wikisource in combination with the fact that EC's status website clearly outline Latvia still has an open ongoing EDP, is a fully sufficient set of references to proof, that Latvia did not comply with the fiscal criteria throughout the months of 2012. Latvia only started to comply with the deficit criteria starting from the first month of 2013. I will now reinstate the entire chapter again. Feel free to create a subarticle with the data table if you think it is too detailed to be featured by the "coin article". Danish Expert (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Latvia only started to comply with the deficit criteria starting from the first month of 2013." - Not according to the Prime Minister of the country, the Ministry of Finance of the country and the Central Bank of the country. Your entire argument is that even though ALL the reliable sources disagree with your WP:OR, anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. Personally, I could care less whether it was you who made the mistake or the Prime Minister of the country. Nor do I care what the standard "ECB method" is. This is obviously NOT a routine WP:CALC. And even if your calculations are correct, as Xil explained to you above it's STILL WP:OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia. You need to cite sources which does the analysis for you. You CAN'T do the analysis yourself. This is rule number 1 of wikipedia. If you desperately feel the need to explain your research to the world, then go publish it on your blog or something. But this clearly don't belong here. I've tried to WP:AGF with you, but you are becoming increasingly disruptive and I'm loosing my patience. If you continue such behaviour, I'll be force to report you to an admin. TDL (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
We are allowed to do basic arithmetic, not macroeconomic studies, especially if what experts in the field have contradicted your findings. And Latvian government and bank do count as experts as they probably know better than us what the state of country's economy is. It is quite impossible for every single one of them to be mistaken, but if they are surely you can find somebody else who also has noticed and written an article for some publication. Judging from edit history you two have been going at this for three weeks now. That's plenty of time to find commentary in reliable source to support your views. If this has proven impossible you really should stop ~~Xil (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Danish Expert, this article is about coins. The fulfilling of the criteria section is just a small side section. However, even in a full article about Latvia's economy in relation to its possible adoption of euro, your full analysis and info may still have failed my policies of NIK:TOOMUCHINFO and NIK:TOOTECHNICAL.

On your analysis, now, you are wrong. The statement was meant to be "If we stopped time in (very late) September 2012 and disregarded the past and the future time, at that point, Latvia would fulfill the criteria to join the eurozone." Inflation rate was roughly 3.0, deficit was obviously below 3.0, being 4.2 in March 2012 and 1.7 in January 2013, debt-to-GDP and ERM membership time were fine, even on your table, EDP would not apply - there's no past in my assumption, and, as you can see here: [1], Ireland was less than 2% above the average EMU convergence criterion bond yields(sic) - MCBY, so, Latvia was good on that criterion, too. The MCBYMOV - Moving average over 12 months doesn't count.

So, the Latvian statements fall under what people call everyday language, and also have inside knowledge as they come from the relevant central bank and government. Since the ECB or anyone else did not question them, you should have been extra careful before you did so yourself. The statements don't mean per se, that Latvia will join the eurozone tomorrow, but, that it has fulfilled all the criteria so that it can join in less than a year after October 2012, provided that it keeps stuff under control.
Basically, you messed up on using the 12-month moving average, when there was a table named CRITERION bond yields.

TDL, you were involved in a revert war.... as much as DE and Xil were.... you and DE both reverted 3 times each... So, posting the edit warring template on DE's talk page was rather poor form... :P Heracletus (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, making one revert when someone adds a load of irrelevant text, implying that the national bank is spreading falsehood, while having no sources to back it up is so totally being involved in edit war. Inclusionism has its limits, you know, not meeting inclusion criteria might be one of them. ~~Xil (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
What Xil said. Sure I was involved, but my edits were a) restoring the status quo (WP:BRD), b) policy based (WP:NOR/WP:BURDEN), c) supported by all contributors to the talk page discussion except DE (WP:NOCONSENSUS). Also, wikipedia's policy on WP:LIBELous claims (such as DE's suggestion that the Bank of Latvia is either a bunch of liars or too incompetent to calculate the reference values) is abundantly clear ("delete libelous material when it has been identified") and such reverts are specifically exempt from the definition of edit warring.
I'm happy to discuss the issue with anyone, but the repeated adding of unsourced, disputed material against consensus and instructing others "do not delete" is disruptive. I checked DE's block log and talk page and found no evidence that he had been warned of the 3RR policy in the past, so I left him the note. I really don't see how this is "poor form". Had I of reported him to the 3RR noticeboard WITHOUT such a warning, that wouldn't have been fair to him. Editors deserve to be informed of the policies before being blocked for them, which is precisely the point of the 3RR template. TDL (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@TDL: Once again you are stretching your argumentation and bending the truth. We already had an ongoing talkpage debate, where we had moved ahead on the road to argue and counter argue for a solution about the disputed content. Your move to 3RR warn me was "poor form" and a direct short-circuit for our debate to find a solution (as it truely offended me and for a short while drained my energy to continue the debate with you). Please note, that my respond to your revert of the "extended data table" on 12 March 2013, was 1 time to revert this, but not back to the old version, but with 3 new carefully crafted introduction paragraphs highlighting the uncertainties about the displayed data (which you had raised your flag of concern about on the talkpage), with inclucion of my own "concerned flag" about the obviously inaccurate claims made by the Latvian authoraties. So I was all along attempting to move things forward here. If you had a problem with one of my formulated lines (which you now claim was WP:LIBEL), then you could have limited yourself only to revert that particulair line, instead of reverting it all. If you consult my ongoing responds here at the talkpage, then those responds are a clear proof that I always took time to listen to your arguments, and did only revert your reverts after having made additional search for sources and several direct responds to your raised flags. At this point of time you know very well, that I have been an active Wikipedian for 3 years. Heck, I even last year acted as a dispute resolver for an erupted "edit war" going on in one of our football related articles, which I succesfully solved with all involved editors being happy about my help to solve the issue in a peacefull argued way, over at the WP:FOOTBALL forum. So I am not a WP newbie, but on the contrary very well aware about the 3RR policy, which is why I all along have opted instead to engage with you here at the talkpage debate instead. Your attempt to threath me to shut-up (as you did in your recent edit summary) and force through your own opinion just by raising a "3RR-warning on my talkpage", will not succeed. Danish Expert (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@Heracletus: I accept your opinion -shared by Xil- that it was probably too extensive info for the scope of the article about "coins", also to have the long chapter about euro compliance. Please note the edit prehistory that provoked me to extend the data table and eventually also to write a long introduction paragraph, was because TDL continued to remove my single line stating: "Latvia for the first time managed to comply with all five euro adoption criteria starting in January 2013". My added convergence data for 2012 and "introduction paragraphs" were a respond to the expressed disbelief expressed by TDL, that this was indeed correct. Which you can see based on my provided references that it was. As I responded above to Xil, my suggestion was that a propore solution to his concern that the length of it did not fit the scope of the article, was was not to let it be completely removed from Wikipedia based on that ground, but that we instead could create a subarticle named Latvia and the euro along the same style as the similar article Poland and the euro. The subchapter at this "coin article" could then provide a short summary about Latvias euro adoption compliance with the link to the more detailed subarticle attached as a {{See also}} link. Your stressed point that: "Benchmark outliers" are not classified according to their "12m-average values" but according to their "values in the most recent month" is wrong. I can proof that to you, if you search for "9.1" and compare what you find at file-page 17+43 (equal to document page 16+42) of the most recent ECB convergence report with the Irish 12m-average data for March 2012 in column 2012M03. Do you have any reference to proof your claim, that ECB have recently changed their method how to classify "interest rate benchmark outliers" only by looking at the current interest rate of the month and not on the 12m-average values? As you seem to agree with my stated fact, that Latvia still throughout 2012 had an open ongoing EDP, I assume you also agree with my stressed point that it is incorrect by the Latvian authoraties to claim a deficit criteria compliance since September 2012? As I have argued in my previous reply, this fact alone justify why we should mention it as part of the wikipedia subarticle about the historic "compliance situation for Latvia", that the claim by Latvian authoraties of having achieved a full criteria compliance since September 2012 is simply put "inaccurate and false". As good Wikipedians, I assume you agree with me that we should rectify the situation by presenting the "claim by Latvian authoraties" oppossed to the objective facts and rules stating the opposite (so that all views about the situation are equally expressed)? After reading my reply, do you still think my recent attempt to do so was a bad attempt, and in that case on what points do you think it should be improved? Danish Expert (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I would've moved content myself, if I believed it was appropriate. However, change I reverted, in my opinion, was over-reaction fueled by argument and much of it was unreferenced information. I don't think we need to create WP:POV fork, so I'd prefer doing any splits after this conversation is over, if still needed. Concerning libel, as you also made similar claims about members of government, not providing any references to support your analysis also is in violation of WP:BLP. What exactly is the problem coming up with sources here? TDL did find sources to back him up, but you have only been presenting statistical data, which is OR - macroeconomic data goes well beyond simple calculations and there are statements that contradict your calculations, which means that you should find some sources that back you up - not statistics, but where a person has already interpreted data - otherwise this is synthesis ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@Xil: Yes, you obviously only reverted once during the revert war. I didn't imply you did wrong, but, you could all have calmed down and tried to find out what's true and what's not, before reverting. And, that refers mostly to the other people involved and not you.
@TLD and DE: You're always taking things way more seriously than you should. TDL, you should not always just follow the rules (this is also a wikipedia rule, to not follow the rules (sometimes)); sometimes, you should do some research to form your own opinion - and, I don't mean include OR in the article, but, at least find out if some point is true or not. And, Danish Expert, you should try to reach consensus when reverted, by presenting your points in talk pages, and only after you reach consensus, edit the article page again, especially when it concerns not easily verifiable issues. ---- If the article stated one opinion or the other for 5 days, there would be no real harm; the article is even about a totally different topic, in general.
@DE: Yes, I still disagree with you. If the Swedish government ever said they fulfill the criteria to join the euro, I think nobody would generally question it and raise the detail that they haven't been a ERM II member for at least 2 years. It's not the point that such a statement intends to make. So, the EDP is quite irrelevant in general, as it's a technicality and is based on the other criteria - if a country fulfills all the other criteria, it will -in general- qualify for its EDP to be abrogated, too. The only possible point of disagreement is the interest rates. Even though you may be right, it really depends on whether the ECB would exclude or include Ireland on calculating the reference for the interest rates criterion. The criteria to do so or not are not really clear in the 2012 convergence report. I was however wrong about the table used and you are right on that.
It was up to the ECB to decide if Ireland should have been included to calculate the reference value or not. Using only one country to calculate the reference might be more extreme than including Ireland. The "facts and rules" you refer to are up for ECB's interpretation, and have not been publicly published yet, as far as I know. So, to some degree, you used original research. In the next convergence report, there will probably be a statement as to what constitutes an outlier in the interest rates criterion. Until then, it's a bit up to speculation.
If you however find a source stating very specifically when a country is considered an outlier considering the calculation of the reference value for the interest rates criterion, then, you will prove whether the Latvian government's statement was correct or not. I think that you should be trying to gain consensus next time before you re-revert things you add. You do add quite valuable content most times, but, it's not always easily verifiable. Heracletus (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
"sometimes, you should do some research to form your own opinion ... at least find out if some point is true or not" - this comment (like all of DE's) misses the entire point of this conversation (and wikipedia in general). Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM for a general discussion on the status Latvia's economy, or on the validity of DE's analysis. Talk pages exist for one reason only: to improve the article. Why should I waste my time double checking DE's OR? Even if DE was "100% correct" as he likes to say, it STILL doesn't belong here because DE is an unreliable source and thus we can't trust his (or my) analysis. I'm not going to waste my time reproducing a bunch of tedious calculations just to satisfy DE's quest to prove that his analysis is the WP:The Truth. Especially so because it all comes down to interpretations: was Ireland's interest rate "significantly higher" than the eurozone average? did Latvia's deficit "declined substantially" when it was over the 3.0% limit? Where there "exceptional circumstances" which exempt them from meeting the critera? We can argue about this till the cows come home, but as there are no hard and fast rules on how to make these interpretations, at the end of the day our opinions are irrelevant. All that matters is the opinion of RS. What's the point of engaging in that argument if our opinions are irrelevant? We'd be equally productive arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
@DE: if you genuinely believed that restoring the exact same table 4 times against consensus, the last time adding even MORE unsourced analysis by yourself, was "attempting to move things forward" then I'm not sure what else to say to you. Given the temper tantrum you threw after I (unintentionally) made the same bold edit twice, I'm shocked that you don't understand why making the same bold addition 4 times is inappropriate. The suggestion that you "took time to listen to your arguments" when in fact you restored the content 4 times in a row without any sources demonstraes that you aren't WP:LISTENing to my argument. I'm not trying to "threath me to shut-up", I'm trying to get you to follow the policies. If you establish a consensus on the talk page that adding all of this crap is a good idea, then I won't revert you. But clearly no such consensus yet exists. I'm sorry that my notice on your talk page was so offending to you. Next time I'll just immediately report you to an admin and request that you be blocked. Hopefully losing your editing privileges doesn't "drain your energy" as much.
Also, I agree with Xil. We don't need a POV fork. This OR doesn't belong anywhere on the project. TDL (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@TDL: You ignored that the content of the material I re-instated 12 March was re-instated as a changed version with around 6 added references for a start to fully back the written material. In compination with the 3RR warning you posted, and considering you did that after I had moved things forward, was experienced as offensive by me. I however accept your appoligy and WP:AGF. The important detail you so far have missed to consider, is that my upload can not be claimed to be personal opinion based on WP:OR. It is based on the well described "ECB method" which any person can consult to see that the data colours in the table has been colored correctly. Please see my reply below to Xil+Heracletus for further details about the matter. Main point is, that it is better and more objective for the article to reflect objective stats based on a well-described method, rather than letting any partial opinion stated by "Latvian authoraties" stand alone on this matter. The Latvian Central Bank is not allowed to write the history according to their own personal believe if it contradicts with what the ECB method clearly states and indicates. At least such a discrepency would be appropriate to be reflacted by the Wikipedia article mapping the convergence situation for the country. Danish Expert (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@Xil+Heracletus: I accept your opinion, that the decision whether or not to spin-off a subarticle with some of my proposed content, now shall depend on the outcome and result of our debate here at the talkpage. The reason why I so far had a problem to find direct sources supporting my published finding: "that Latvia did not comply with all criteria throughout 2012", is simply because we mainly only have "Latvian authoraties" having made the same comments about it. All together this however only count as 1 spoken position, as it all origin from the same Latvian Central Bank, with the Latvian PM obviously duplicating their opinions in this field. My raised flag is, that sometimes even a National Central Bank can start to act on a political level and have political opinions about matters impacting its nations interest, that ultimately even will contradict with the scientific or political opinion expressed by ECB or other experts in the field. I can promise you, that I will slowly work to find some direct sources for what I have stated loud and clear here at the talkpage. Because it is all 100% correct.
After reading all treaty articles and the convergence reports from 1995-1998 and 2010-2012 (and basing my work upon that), it is completely certain that I did not misunderstand this matter or how the "ECB method" work. Our main problem however right now is, that ECB only loudly express their opinion about convergence once every second year, which mean their is a potential open field for National Central Banks in any euro candidate country to claim whatever they like. The ECB convergence report will in most cases only measure the convergence situation as it stands on the application month itself. This mean, that in order to find out if Latvia indeed technically complied ahead of the assesment month (as the Latvian Central Bank claim), we have to do that assesment based on the published and well-described "ECB method", which has been outlined as framework by the EU treaty and in full detail by the published convergence reports in 1995-2012 (with a summary provided by the Euro convergence criteria article). I agree with you, that it is not an optimal situation. Obviously it would be preferred if ECB published monthly convergence assesments. But unfortunately they don't, and this is why we have to map how the situation looks inbetween of their 2-year intervals. What I can tell you is, that all previous convergence reports used the same "ECB method" when deciding whether or not a country complied with the 5 criteria. My published data for all 12 months was provided by Eurostat, and then I had to calculate the reference values according to the "ECB method". It was not in any aspect wrong. Our problem is that the exact "outlier criteria" has not been quantified by ECB, but based on previous precedence when ECB in around 10 previous examples selected outliers in their previous reports from 1995-2012, we have precedense that ECB both for HIPC and interest rates are operating with an unwritten "2.0% above eurozone average limit" for a country to be classified as outlier (and excluded for the calculation of the reference value). As long as we highlight this is an uncertainty as part of calculating the reference value, then my opinion is this is however accetable enough for the reader. Because the monthly convergence data for Latvia (and all other applicants) is either way the same and sourced by bullet-proof references. The only "extra unsourced detail" we add for the table is whether or not the backround color shall be colored green or red as INDICATION.
Please note, that in my latest edit I in fact highlighted this "indicated convergence situation" as a top-disclaimer ahead of the table, that the data did only indicate the nations convergence with the criteria, and that the official ruling whether or not we indeed had complete convergence currently await the official ECB report. Please note, the Latvian authoraties are not allowed to declare any official complete convergence either, before the moment they receive the ECB report. Nevertheless they are publishing data and their own opinion whether or not they complied with the convergence data since September 2012. I have to stress, that my added data lines for all months in 2012 is not based on my own opinion, but simply a collection of objective data and statistics from Eurostat, where only the "outlier criteria" has been fixed based on the "precedense excersized by previous ECB reports". I agree it is not an optimal situation. In my point of view, it is however much more neutral and fact based compared to the political opinion of the Latvian Central Bank, which I already now (at least in regards of the fiscal deficit criteria) have proofed to you was wrong in regards of their claim for full criteria compliance since September 2012.
Speaking about the EDP, it is not just a technicallity. The reason why Latvia did not get their EDP abrogated in 2012 was because they did not comply with the EDP's deficit criteria by its 2011 data. The European Commission and Ecofin Council as a standard evaluate each nations EDP 3 times per year (after publication of each forecast reports in Feb+May+Nov), but did not find any reason to abrogate the Latvian EDP in 2012. The ECB method is 1:1 identical with the EDP decision, meaning that Latvia in no circumstance can be claimed to have complied with the deficit criteria throughout 2012. The ECB method rule is, that when you check for deficit compliance you always compare the official Eurostat data for the last full calendar year. ECB in the previous 18 years never based their fiscal compliance evaluation solely on forecasted figures for an ongoing year. Please check again my previous links for the EU treaty and read the latest ECB convergence report, and you will realise that what I have writen here (both in the article and the talkpage) is indeed true. The Latvian Central Bank has stretched/bended the "assesment situation" when claiming full compliance since September 2012. It is simply not possible to claim so, when they all along were officially "red marked" by an EDP. Danish Expert (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@TDL: If the analysis can be sourced well, it should be accepted. To comment on a point made, one should always understand the actual situation. So, if someone wants to prove the truth here, the other side should know what they are talking about, not just dismiss it as unsourced.
@DE: Good luck on your one-man crusade against the Latvians. Nobody really cares if they unofficially met the criteria in late 2012, or not. Not even the Latvians themselves. It's all about their official evaluation that will happen soon. And, on a sidenote, I did not imply, state or endorse any new articles or ideas for articles being produced off our discussion here.
Is the offending statement currently in the article even? Heracletus (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
If the results of an analysis are well sourced then it can be included. But even if the methodology is well sourced, conclusions made based on this methodology can't be included unless the conclusions themselves are directly sourced: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Like it or not, that's how wikipedia works.
What exactly are you getting at by "the other side should know what they are talking about"? Trust me, I'm well aware of what DE's talking about. I've read more than my fair share of WP:Massive wall of text explaining it and why it is "100% perfect and correct". Just because I don't want to engage in yet another discussion on the flaws of DE's methodology, doesn't mean I don't understand what he's talking about. In summary, the entire discrepancy in the interest rate reference value is a result of Irelands inclusion/exclusion. DE excludes them because he's read a bunch of ECB convergence reports from a decade ago, tried to reverse engineer the cutoff between "outlier" and "non-outlier" from the few examples provided despite the fact that he can't disentangle other convolved factors such as whether a state is facing "exceptional circumstances", claimed the results of his analysis are the standard "ECM method", applied this methodology to the recent data, WP:SYNed his result for all the various criteria together, and concluded that therefore Latvia didn't meet the criteria until he says so. None of these steps are justified by sources. I'm not going to have an arugment with him saying "but no, outliers should be 3% above the average not 2%" because the specific choices he has made in his methodology are irrelevant. The very fact that he HAS to make such choices, which have not been announced by the ECB, is the problem.
And no, the claims by the Latvian's that they have met the criteria since Oct 2012 aren't included in the article. Nor have I ever suggested that they should be. They were first included by DE's last edit, which I reverted. That was just a straw man argument by DE to justify the inclusion of his research as a counterbalance. TDL (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree, apart from the point that the reports are old. They're all based on the same criteria. --- But, then, you may assume bad faith... :P Heracletus (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all the reports are based on the same criteria, but because the criteria are so extremely vague, the analysis can change drastically depending on who does it, when they do it, and what mood they're in. Way back in 1998, when the first group of states were approved to adopt the euro, Italy had a debt of 121.6%, which is slightly larger the reference value of 60%. However, the ECB found them to be in compliance because their debt was "sufficiently diminished and must be approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace" due to the fact that they had reduced it by 3.3% over the prior 3 years. At that rate it would take them what, more than half a century to get down to the target? In fact, of the original 11 eurozone states, only 4 actually met the criteria. Me thinks the ECB would come to a radically different conclusion today, so I don't think that this should be used as a precedent to "prove" that this is some sort of "standard ECB method" and that they'd accept another state with debt of >120%. At the end of the day, it's a political decision. They can fudge the numbers to get whatever result the politicians want, so there is no "standard ECB method". So yes, I suppose I do assume bad faith of the bankers... TDL (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is an excellent overview of how the exact same criteria can be used to get drastically different results, depending on the prevailing political mood: "the entrance criteria have very little to do with economics, and very much with politics ... the Maastricht convergence criteria are instruments that are used in arbitrary ways to pursue political objectives." Thus, you really can't draw conclusions from past reports and claim that there is a standard "ECB method" It's impossible to say whether a state meets the criteria or not until the ECB says so. TDL (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
As usual you now start to twist the debate and your reply into directions so that it color an unjust picture of my actions and moves, and the data situation itself. My inclusion of the line saying that the Latvian Central Bank had claimed complete compliance since Sep 2012, was an attempt to satisfy your call for clarification on the matter. If I had not uploaded the combined data + Latvian central bank oppinion + commenting lines, then an unaware editor would surely soon feel inspired and be fully allowed at any point of time to uploade this sentence "According to the Latvian Central Bank the country complied with all criteria since September 2012. When they applied in March 2013 their full compliance was approved by ECB." If this sentence stands alone, it would not reflect the entire truth. My upload of monthly 2012 data into the compliance table partly serves the purpose to proof that the claim by the Latvian Central Bank was incorrect, and partly serves the purpose of telling the story "how the ECB method works" to the reader, so that he in a quick way can grasp how it will work when other application countries in the future will be convergence criteria evaluated by ECB. Another interesting point you can digest out of the data, is that the very first month Latvia complied with all 5 convergence data they also applied. This indicate they have been well prepared for the euro-changeover for a long while, and the only reason for their delayed application to adopt the euro is because they did not comply with all 5 economic criteria throughout the past 9 years, not until now, and then they immedeately applied. We obviously have different views about whether or not the historical data matters. In my point of view they are notable enough for inclusion.
In regards of your attack against how you claim that I "arbitrary selected an unwritten outlier limit", then you obviously continue to speek about something you have not checked and fully understood. First of all I have extracted the "outlier data" from all convergence reports in 1995-2012 (and not only from those I have reading in full) + Combined it with the qualified Analysis report published by Swedbank. And I did consider the so-called additional required "financial stability criteria" (meaning you should not only suffer from elevated interest rates but that the government also shall be in a position without complete access to financial markets - before they will be classified as an outlier). So my finding that we have precedense for ECB to operate with an outlier limit at "2% above eurozone-average" is in no way arbitrary. Despite of that, I have always agreed with you that is neither far from being perfect or optimal, that we have a situation where ECB never quantified their "outlier limit".
My main point however (which you continue to ignore), is that for as long as we add a top-disclaimer which describe this uncertainty in the "color method" to the reader, then it can be justified we keep it as a precedense based assumption. All data in the data cells of the uploaded table include objective data bullet-proof sourced by Eurostat, and is not affected by our discussion. Only the background colour for HICP+Interest rates and the noted criteria limit depends on the so-called "outlier criteria". However, as I have included a specific note for all data behind the reference values, the reader himself can read and digest the data and watch it according to the top-disclaimed assumption about the "outlier criteria"; and then if he disagree about the assumption he can still use the notified "disregarded data" to see how it would have looked in case he on his own move adjust the "outlier criteria assumption" to include it. So despite of having this imbuild weakness to our data table, it does not mean this will support your point of view, that we should completely stop to upload these monthly data. Currently the table display the convergence data in the best possible way, and for sure it is better than a situation with no data included/uploaded at all. If you argue against displaying "monthly convergence data", then we should in principle also stop uploading the data for the "most recent month" into the main Template:Euro convergence criteria. If we start polling the readers if they would like us to continue/stop uploading the "monthly convergence data" to the main table, I am rather sure the majority will prefer we continue...in particular if you poll the readers from the candidate countries. Danish Expert (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent comment that evaluation of "Fiscal criteria" is also arbitrary and that we dont have an "ECB method" is not correct. Once again the point you overlooked (which the majority of people overlook), is that ECB in the past 18 years judged a countries situation based upon whether or not the country had an open ongoing EDP. You are definately correct to claim it has partly been a political matter to decide wether or not these EDPs should be triggered. But the ECB method clearly state it operate according to whether or not the country has an open ongoin EDP or not. You are also wrong when you claim Italy did not comply with the debt criteria, it is a directly written part of the EDP that for as long as the "debt have a declining trend" (a slightly reformulation of the technical words) then it will satisfy the debt criteria even if it exceeds the 60% limit. The criteria is "below 60% of GDP or if above you should have a debt-to-GDP with a declining trend". Danish Expert (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, sometimes I wonder whether you even bother to read what I have written before responding. If you spent half as much time reading as you spent filling talk pages with thousands of kb of text you would save us all a hell of a lot of time. Or perhaps this is a WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty issue. I don't know. But I certainly never said you "arbitrary selected an unwritten outlier limit". Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that there is no well defined outlier limit and thus you had to try to "reverse engineer" what the limit was. Which is precisely what you just said. And no, your "disclaimer" doesn't address the issue. You can't add a bunch of unsourced speculation, say "I'm right and the Bank of Latvia, the Prime Minister, and the Ministry of Finance are all wrong because I say so" and honestly believe that you've addressed the problem.
Latvia's raw data is completely irrelevant to this article in the absence of a comparison to the reference values, so you can't just dismiss this as some minor problem. And yes I agree, the data at Template:Euro convergence criteria is equally problematic. I'm currently contemplating the best way to address this issue. And no, wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Just because lots of people would vote to include something doesn't mean we should do it.
As for the EDP, you've once again missed the entire point. Since "declining trend" is not defined, it's not clear what satisfies this. Does a 3.3% decrease for Italy over three years constitute a declining trend? Perhaps, but that's not obvious. Does Austria's increase in debt by 0.1% over 3 years constitute a "declining trend"? Even less obvious, but they were still found to be in compliance. Until you can show me a quote by the ECB which specifies how much the debt has to decrease and over how long does it have to be decreasing, then there is no "ECB method" for determining if a state's debt is compliant. TDL (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
DE, sorry, but you not being able to find sources is not an excuse, it rather goes to prove this content should not be in article. And you just admitted that some of criteria are not clearly stated by ECB, you found them out by reading the previous reports and making an observation. See that is original research. Surely, though, somebody else has noticed this over last 15 or so years, just as some PIGs being excluded from analysis is something I heard in the news recently, and I've been reading enough business press to know Latvian government has been doing stuff to ensure criteria are mechanically met. However, lying would be whole different ball game and I personally find it counterproductive - when it is easy to notice it just would damage the country's image and diminish chances of reaching the goal. However, given countries current goals I am sure international press and experts are also paying attention. So, if you are right, it is quite unbelievable nobody else has noticed. And even once you find sources you should reflect both opinions to be neutral (instead of claiming LB to be wrong you should say that expert X has been questioning this). Uploading monthly convergence stats elsewhere is indeed questionable, considering. I was under impression that in many other articles only latest ECB data is used. ~~Xil (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@TDL: I actually have been reading your linked article. What it states is partly correct. The detail you and the article however continue to overlook, is that the ECB method rule is constant and unchanged throughout the past 18 years. Because as the ECB method states, it is whether or not the country has an EDP which decide if it comply with the fiscal criteria. It is not the ECB who decide if the country has an open ongoing EDP, but instead the European Commission in conjunction with the Ecofin Council. Next time the European Commission and Ecofin Council will evaluate the EDPs for all EU member states is shortly after the 2012 data will be published by Eurostat (22 April) and their publication of the Spring Forecast (7 May). These two documents will constitute and provide the evaluation data for the Commission+Ecofin Council to decide wether or not a country has an EDP. Your claim that these decisions in the past were more political than they are today is true. After the Sixpack (European Union law) was adopted in December 2011 it became far less political, and more strictly regulated. The ECB method however have stayed irrevocably unchanged in the past 18 years, as it only check whether or not the country has an open ongoing (European Commission + Ecofin Council granted) EDP or not. Danish Expert (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@Xil: Unbelievable nobody else noticed? Yes indeed - but in part this is due to unaware journalists and that ECB do not comment public on any National Cental Bank claims in this regard, but instead just refer to their public convergence reports (published with two years intervals). As I started out to state at the very top of this lengthy discussion, there is absolutely no doubt that my uploaded "monthly data" is entirely correct, and I have also promised you to look out for additional sources to proof it. For a start, I found and listed the "Treaty sources" and "Swedbank Analysis" that directly agreed with my "understanding of how the fiscal criteria are evaluated", and then the "Swedbank Analysis" indirectly proofed they at least agreed with my assement and understanding of the situation that Ireland as of 1 August 2012 was considered still to be an "interest rate outlier for the calculation of the interest rate reference value - and should be excluded". Reason why I did not yet manage to find dirict sources for the ECB monthly reference values (which we already currently know based on the ECB method and Eurostat data), is because ECB do not publish such data and because of personal time constraints for me to scan the web for expert articles helping us to further source and verify this matter. On your request (and spurred by the friendly "Good luck" from Heracletus), I will now prioritize to scan the web and return later today with a full report on my findings. Danish Expert (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Per OR rules nothing is correct until you got sources to back you up, you do need direct sources before you put something in article. Every single journalist is not unaware moron (you should check out business press, rather than everyday news) and they are not the sole source for commentary. This is not about if you understand correctly, but about having somebody else who has 1. made same observation on how this calculation is done 2. made estimates 3. made same conclusion as you 4.and most importantly - published it. There is no use in producing walls and walls f text until you have compelling evidence in form of reliable sources. Please, prioritize that over this discussion, it is more important than proving to us that you are right, if you want it in the article ~~Xil (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You dont have to tell me to do something I already promised. :-) After a long travel to the Polish Ministry of Finance, I have managed to find the monthly references you have all requested, in order to support my reported monthly reference value figures in the data table. As you can see from the figures, the Polish Ministry of Finance agree that Ireland throughout the second half of 2012 was to be considered an interest rate outlier, and hence agreed with me that the interest rate reference value throughout those months were lower than claimed by the Latvian Central Bank. So there you have the proof.

I have now re-instated my data in the article again, and added each published document as a source for the noted reference values in the table. I also made a minor reformulation of the introduction lines, so that it is more neutral worded. My intention was never to claim the Latvian Central Bank intentionally lied, but instead just to say that they published an inaccurate claim. They slightly bended the truth and painted a little too rosy picture, by using forecasted fiscal data and no longer considering Ireland to be an interest rate outlier. This has now been rectified. Feel free now to comment, if you still want certain changes to be made for the data table (or if we should make a spin-off). FYI my intention is not to list monthly data for all EU member states with derogations, but I think it shall be listed for countries like Latvia - during the last year leading uptill the countrys submission of their euro adoption application. It would be remote to add monthly data for the other countries, that are not even currently a member of ERM2. The point is that it is more relevant also to have monthly data listed for countries complying with ERM2 (member for two years) + Fiscal criteria, as they then theoreticly might comply with all criteria in a matter of months. Danish Expert (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is however, a small paragraph there: "** Według szacunków Biura Pełnomocnika Rządu ds. Wprowadzenia Euro przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską, wartość referencyjna dla kryterium stabilności cen przyjęła w sierpniu wartość 3,0, a dla kryterium stóp procentowych 3,7." Which says that according to Polish estimates, the criteria values are those... So, you have so far proven that the Polish Ministry of Finance based on their own estimates disagreed with the Latvian statements.
Even if, and only for the purposes of this argument, we - for one second and not more - accept that the Polish analysis may be correct and the Latvian false, again it's not the official ECB analysis, AND the whole issue can be addressed in a single sentence. I do not see the point of adding your huge analysis back to the article for the 4th time, while nobody else agrees completely with it. Heracletus (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Honestly I am a bit surprised, after having used an extensive amount of extra time in order to find a "set of monthly sources" to back my calculated monthly reference values, that you now think it is still not sufficient enough for the data to be included. I agree the entire data rows are only an indicative estimate (inbetween the official ECB report data rows), but as this is outlined loud and clear by the introduction lines ahead of the table, it really should not be fooling anybody. These monthly data are the best that we got, and the monthly data has notabillity and great interest for the candidate countries to follow (as the second year intervals for receiving updated ECB reports are a very long time to wait and not sufficient for the purpose to observe the country's ongoing progress towards compliance with the criteria). The monthly data table help us also to provide an accurate indication of when a candidate country is ready for compliance and submission of an euro adoption application. IMHO the main reason to keep the monthly data table for Latvia, is that it provides full info and insight for readers about: 1) How the "ECB evaluation method work" (with monthly change of reference values), 2) That Latvia applied for euro adoption at the very first month they managed to comply with all criteria. For the matter of prooving I am not the only one who think it is appropriate to post monthly data, you can see they are doing the same (however at a more poor quality) over at the Polish wikipedia. Danish Expert (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is great news that DE has finally found a source for the reference values. Good work! This will make our lives much easier. However, I agree with Heracletus that there is still no need for the massive table. A short paragraph is sufficient to explain the two results. And no, we still shouldn't say "the Bank of Latvia was wrong". We should present the results in a WP:NPOV way. Also, there is the problem that the Polish source calculates different reference values than the ones which DE has calculated. (I've just taken a quick glance, but the first link seems to get an interest rate of 7.7% while DE gets 5.79% unless google translate is failing me.) If you're going to use this as a source, then you have to actually use their values. You can't just use your calculations, and tack on a link to the Polish MFA which gets a different result. TDL (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
When I added the refs, I for a start only checked the 6 last data reports for the second half of 2012, and found a full compliance. Prompted by your note, I have now checked all values. The Polish reports verify and agree with my calculation of HICP reference values for all 13 months since Jan 2012, but however notes a different interest rate reference value in Jan-Apr 2012, with the reason for this that they were not aware Ireland should have been excluded as an outlier in the first months of 2012, and only became aware of it when ECB published their convergence report in May. They also continued to mark Ireland as a benchmark outlier in January 2013, where I noted Ireland should no longer be considered to be a benchmark outlier. This last discrepency is something I can accept to correct, as it can also be counter argued we anyway have a borderline situation when Ireland is mapped to be 1.99% above the eurozone average. In regards of the first 4 Polish reports they made an estimation mistake, which is obvious as Ireland in those 4 months also was the recipient of a bailout package and suffered from even higher interest rates in those months (compared to the situation mapped by the ECB report). As a compromise, and solution for the above, I will now suggest we remove the first 3 data rows in the table, but keep the rest of it. The main point is not to proof if the Latvian Central Bank was right/wrong about their claim (this is just a related side-effect). As I argued in my reply above, I think the main point is to show the readers how the "ECB evaluation method" work, which the Latvian case is a great example for. Can you accept the table with 3 less rows? Danish Expert (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Danish Expert, I don't really disagree with the general idea of your analysis, especially since there's a source for it. However, I disagree with the style. None of these analyses is more formal/true/good/right than the other. They are both based on estimates and they are not the analysis of the ECB. So, you have to present them somehow equally. I would prefer paragraph of this sort: "On day/month, Latvian source A published their estimate that Latvia fulfilled the Maastricht/convergence criteria enabling them to join the eurozone since month.(refs) This statement was repeated by Latvian source B (on day).(refs) However, data published by Polish/other source C seem to contradict\disprove this statement.(refs) (Some text on Ireland being used to calculate the reference interest rate value or not) However, since month all sources agree that Latvia indeed fulfills the Maastricht criteria, with the exception of still having an EDP. (Some text on EDP and when it may be abrogated)", instead of your full-blown analysis. Heracletus (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) I am still concerned. So we have a Polish estimate and Latvian estimates. I still don't see how this justifies big fat "Proof that the claim made by the Latvian Central Bank was incorrect" and sources supporting that claim - this is synthesis. All we have is two estimates made by different authorities that contradict each other. I would rather suggest writing something like "Latvian Bank made estimate x. Their estimate, however, excludes this and this, because of this. Other estimates like the one made by Poland say y". And use Polish source for other articles ~~Xil (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Xil and Heracletus. Neither one of the estimates is "right" or "wrong", they're both just estimates and it's inappropriate for us to describe them as such without sources that make such conclusions. We should present both results, explain why they differer, and let the reader decide which estimate is better. And a month-by-month summary of the results is still not notable, wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS. Something along the lines of what Heracletus outlined looks good. Also, your suggestion that the Polish MFA is correct whenever they agree with you, but wrong when they disagree with you is WP:CHERRY picking data. If you think that they aren't a reliable source for the estimates, then we shouldn't use any of their data. But if you think they are, then you must be willing accept their analysis. TDL (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@Xil:I dont agree with your conlcusion. We do not have two equal estimates. We have: 1) Well described ECB Method and my extracted reference values based on that, 2) Polish source that confirm and verify nr.1 based on the same ECB method, 3) Latvian investor report written by the Latvian Central Bank which published another interest rate reference value for October 2012 and conducted an euro convergence compliance check that was not strictly done according to the "ECB method" but according to their own data approach. Nr.1+2 is sufficient to allow that we now keep the data table with monthly values. In regards of how the introduction lines are formulated, I am willing to accept we reformulate it, so that it more accurately say that the Latvian Central Bank did not strictly adhere to the "ECB method" but followed another data approach in their report. As the Latvian Central Banks report findings have been public spoken and referred to, I think it is appropriate we mention it. But it should be highlighted and understood they did not follow the ECB convergence evaluation method in their claim/report. Only the Polish Ministry of Finance and our compiled data table strictly followed the "ECB method". The Latvian reports conclusion (and subsequent claims) about fiscal criteria compliance in October 2012 is the sole proof that the Latvian Central Bank did not strictly adhere to the "ECB method", which I now have proofed by: 1) Treaty links, 2) Checked the fiscal criteria evaluation approach was identical (meaning it always referred to EDP and evaluated the fiscal data of the last full calendar year) in all previously published ECB reports from 1995-2012, 3) Polish source did the same as 1+2. Danish Expert (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@Heracletus: As per my reply above to Xil, I will now try to meet your request to reformulate the lines to some even more neutral text lines, that however still will emphasize the Latvian Central Bank source do not strictly follow the "ECB method" in their data approach (and for the matter of fact never claimed to do so). Danish Expert (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@TDL: Yes, I now also accept to enforce the Polish data as main reference for the noted reference values starting from assesment month: May 2012. I will soon rectify the Jan 2013 stats so that they align with the reported findings by the Polish method. In regards of whether or not we should keept the "monthly data table" featured by the article, I have now stated several times, and will repeat: "The reason why it is included is not because of the note about different "data approach" and confusing incorrect statements about "full compliance as of October 2012". As I wrote in my reply above, the main reason and notability for the inclusion of "monthly data" is: 1) To show readers how the "ECB method" work, 2) To map the countrys ongoing monthly progress towards full compliance (according to the ECB method) in the year ahead of their submitted euro adoption application (which is set in stone to be stamped as "full compliance"). In my reply above, I also listed a linkt to the Polish wikipedia, which also decided to post a table with monthly data (although by a far more poor quality than our table). Danish Expert (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
DE, I'm sorry, but have you read the WP:OR yet? You should have realised from it that your first source - that is you - is considered unreliable. ECB method is used in ECB reports, and as I understand not clearly stated by them. What we have here is Polish method and Latvian method. We are not to judge which is better, all we can do is explain why they are didferent ~~Xil (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

I have reverted Danish Expert's latest revert. First of all, this is proper considering a. there is clear consensus against these edits and b. my revert undid Danish Expert's fourth revert. They've been warned about edit warring and they did it again--in other circumstances I might have blocked the offender. Second--please stand by; it's Pi-day and I'm working on something. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by TDL to look into this matter, and I have--I read almost the entire discussion here. I don't wish to go into too much detail, but it is obvious to me, and to at least three of the participants in the above conversation, that Danish Expert's work may be academically sound and/or of interest, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia: it is original research, and that's the long and short of it. Whenever primary sources are interpreted and compared, whenever commentary needs to be given that explicates such or such numbers and their origin and value, whenever someone drives to Poland to confirm a certain interpretation or calculation, we're dealing with original research. What's more, speaking as an editor but also as an administrator who has closed a number of RfCs, it is obvious to me and to others here on this talk page that this content, even if were properly secondarily sourced, is excessive, and even a summary of it might not be appropriate for this particular article. But, most of all, it is original research and as such has no place here, though it is entirely possible that some journal might be interested in the subject matter. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: First of all I want to appoligy for my too hasty re-inclusion of the content into the article, which I by the way only did because of the presumption of having satisfied all fellow editors call for adding a direct reference for the "Reference values in the table", which previously indeed lacked a reference. In the back-mirror, I was a little too hasty to re-instate and should of course instead first have uploaded the content to my sandbox, and then asked for the talkpage approval before uploading it again. Please however consider, that all my actions were only excecuted in good faith. Subsequently I was surprised to find a continued resistance about the content from fellow editors here at the talkpage. Based on those grounds, I of course accept your removal of the content from the article, and have just created a sandbox for the subsequent debate we shall now still continue to have, about the appropriateness (which I still claim) to include a monthly data table in the article.
In regards of your claim that my most recent version of the uploaded disputed material is still WP:OR, I will request you to return with a reply why you think this is so, and what we in your opinion need to do in order for the content to satisfy the policy. As far as I know, we are allowed at Wikipedia to create our own wikitables to display fully referenced data, which it indeed was in my latest version of the data table. I admit at first to have uploaded unsourced "Monthly reference value data" that strived against WP:OR, which was something I only did as part of a process, in the hope for other editors (or myself) at a later stage being able to find direct sources for those values. Yesterday, I indeed managed to find a direct source for these monthly values published by the Polish Ministry of Finance. Please take into consideration, that we do not have 2 equal WP:RS for the same data but only have 1 (The Polish source), as I have managed to proof here at the talkpage that the Latvian source do not qualify for the purpose, as it did not strictly follow the published official "ECB evaluation method" (which it by the way funny enough also never claimed it did) - but instead has adopted its own data approach. Please also consider, that my uploaded data table with monthly data in principle can stand alone, even without that we mention the debated report by the "Latvian Central Bank", as I have prooved here at the talkpage they utilised another data approach than the official "ECB method". After I now have ellaborated on the details, do you then have a different opinion whether or not my most recent version of the uploaded material still shall be classified as WP:OR?
The reason why I think it is so important that we in the Latvian article display monthly convergence values for each month for the past year, and why inclusion of this material shall not be disquallified as per WP:NOTSTATS, is because the uploaded monthly data (for the most recent 12 months) reflect how the official "ECB method" works, as a graphical illustration which help casual readers to grasp that all candidate countrys have been granted the right by EU to apply ECB for conducting a monthly convergence check at each month during the year (if they belief to have met all criteria). Unfortunately ECB do not automatically publish monthly convergency reports during the year (because in that case we would obviously have used their direct data for the table instead). But as I already provided evidense for, the Polish Ministry are publishing monthly reports where they check for monthly convergence and calculate the ECB reference value limits based on the official "ECB method" (which proofs this is notable stuff), and their findings in the Polish context has also been covered over at the Polish wikipedia (although by a much lower quality than my attempt). Taking this into consideration, will you then still argue it is inappropriate we do the same here at the English wikipedia for the Latvian article (in the version showcased by my sandbox)? Danish Expert (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Danish Expert, there are some points you keep missing (or rather you choose to ignore):
  • You found a source to prove your point. BUT, we kept telling you this article is not about the point you're making, it's about another topic. And, people may accept even a long table, or 3 paragraphs on your point, but, not a very long table with 15 footnotes and 3-4 paragraphs on your POV. Get a grip! Write less stuff (or formulate it better). Drmies wrote: "What's more, speaking as an editor but also as an administrator who has closed a number of RfCs, it is obvious to me and to others here on this talk page that this content, even if were properly secondarily sourced, is excessive, and even a summary of it might not be appropriate for this particular article."
  • If you think all the stuff you wrote should be included, make it into a new article and see if people think it's notable and of value. BETTER STILL, ask before you do such a thing. Ask people to evaluate or edit your sandbox. My interim opinion of your sandbox is: table ok (perhaps too long - if it takes 10 years for a country to join, will we have 120 rows? WP:NOTSTATS), 37 footnotes not ok (for God's sake, man), 3+1 paragraphs POV (get a grip).
  • People keep telling you all the time, THERE IS NO FULLY DOCUMENTED, PUBLISHED AND CONSISTENT ECB METHOD. You made this up. Their evaluations are not really always consistent with each other, and they have not fully published all their criteria considering outliers and other stuff. (The TRUTH (aargh) is they don't really have way too fixed criteria, and, they acknowledge this themselves with the outliers and other similar stuff - which is normal and to be expected, as the economy is not a static thing and needs some flexibility.)
  • When you just ignore what people say and keep making the same arguments over and over and over again, and even take action, people stop assuming good faith. Start reading the policies NOW!!!! You mistyped WP:RS (as PS), and, you clearly don't understand WP:OR (and WP:TRUTH). Both sources are reliable, they just used different assumptions, and they are not the ones which formally certify whether there's convergence or not, or which set the exact criteria. And you have a whole paragraph of WP:POV on why the Latvians were wrong.
The bottom line is that you are probably right, but, you cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt, because there are no data from ECB to prove it (at least yet). So, it's your original research, which could be included only to the extent that is backed by the Polish source, and, the Latvian sources and points have to be also included. Your POV cannot be included. Also, the whole thing is not even relevant to this article (or even at all, as it's speculation and estimates for the past). Moreover, even though other people keep making their points and trying to make you understand their reasoning and the general rules, you choose to ignore them, or perhaps fail to understand them. The point about the truth here is that it is only true to you, until you convince others that it is true (by providing a third-party reliable source perhaps). Until this happens, the TRUTH you hold cannot be included in an article, or may be removed.
Please, refrain from replying, and just read slowly and carefully the policies: WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:N. Heracletus (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@Heracletus: Thanks for your reply. As it did not respond accurately enough on my previous reply and argumentation, I will now shortly rectify the situation on your raised points, while carrying the hope this will also help to move our work forward to find a true solution.
Ad.1: My previous replies to Xil clearly stated, that I was fully ready to accept if he wanted to spin-off the content into an subarticle, and that we also could consider having 2 separate articles with the first one named Latvian euro coins and the second one named Latvia and the euro (to feature the more detailed info about compliance with euro criteria and the political approval process for the euro adoption). The written footnotes and paragraphs are not my own WP:POV, but instead referenced facts. As stated in my reply at 14 March, I will soon cook down and improve the formulation of the listed introduction paragraphs as you also suggest (this work on my behalf got a bit delayed, so it is still pending, but I will try to do it later today). The amount of footnotes is helpful, as it provides the hidden background data behind the calculated reference values. Most (but not all) readers will be curious also to look up this additional data (as it carry important background info about how close/far the involved benchmark countries potentially could be from being classified as outliers), and the interested readers can receive this extra piece of info as a convenient pop-up message just by pointing the mouse on the "note-links". I fail to see why the length of the note-list is a concern? In regards of the opinion expressed by Drmies, you should await his respond to my follow-up questions, before you make up your mind about his final position based on my clarifying respond to his initial concerns.
Ad.2: Why do you say I should do something I already done? I have already created the sandbox, and invited all editors to play with it, in connection with our debate here at the talkpage. Please also consider my previous reply here at the talkpage to Xil, where I explicitly said that my intention was not to start listing monthly historic data for all candidate countries through the entire past. On the contrary, I only find it appropriate to do so for candidate countries having complied with the more or less constant "ERM2 criteria" who actively seek euro adoption (meaning my presented "monthly data table" is only for the moment intended to be applied for Lithuania+Latvia). Moreover, I also explicitly suggested as a compromise that we could limit the monthly data only to be displayed for the last year. Once again my main purpose for including this monthly data is twofold: 1) It maps the candidate country's monthly progress towards full compliance, 2) It is a graphical illustration towards the casual reader about how the "ECB method" works - where he can see the values and criteria change on a monthly basis - along with being aware that the country has the right to request a renewed compliance check by ECB in each month during the year according to that indication.
Ad.3: No, I did not make up the point that we have an official "ECB method". We do have an official published "ECB method", which is consistently published in the same way throughout all the published ECB convergence reports in 1996-2012. I agree with all of you however, that the "ECB method" has been vague and failed to quantify the second half of the "benchmark outlier criteria used as part of the calculation of reference value limits". In regards of the fiscal criteria the ECB method is however rather precise, as it states fiscal compliance should be measured according to whether or not the country holds an open ongoing EDP. The abrogation of EDPs (which is also clearly outlined by the Treaty Protocol), can only be done if the "last full calendar year fiscal data" published by Eurostat is found by the Commission+Ecofin Council to have met the criteria limits. You might rightfully claim the Commission+Ecofin Council previously made some inconsistent EDP evaluations, but this is irrelevant to our debate, as ECB always by the end of the day only considered whether or not there was an open ongoing EDP (which is the true deciding matter when ECB answers YES/NO to whether or not the country has a fiscal compliance). Once again, the Latvian source opted to apply a completely different data approach when evaluating their fiscal compliance in Oct.2012, and as their data approach for fiscal compliance can not be claimed to be equal with the written "ECB method", then this source can not be used by us for this matter (or to question/raise uncertainty about whether or not it is correct/wrong). The main point is, that each source is correct for their selected "data approach", but they have a different data approach, and we can only use the source having applied the exact same data approach as the "ECB method" for our data table. In a short while, I will clarify the introduction lines ahead of the data table in my sandbox, so that it more clearly clarifies that the reason why the two sources reach different conclusions about fiscal compliance, is that they each adopted a different "data approache" and that only the Polish source strictly adhere to the "ECB method data approach". I have already done this in my previously uploaded version, but I will now attempt to improve it so that it is formulated a bit clearer to the casual reader.
Ad.4: I certainly do not ignore any people here. On the contrary I have responded to several concerns here at the talkpage, and among others succeeded to clarify the situation and find the needed "reference value limit" source for the monthly data. It seems to me, that you accidently mix-up how the introduction paragraphs were initially formulated by me on 13 March (which I admit was not appropriate), and then my most recent uploaded formulation on 14 March. Please read it again later today, and return to me with a more clear minded answer if you still do not like the formulation (and be more specific on what points), and feel free to change or tag mark those points directly in my sandbox as a tool to illustrate your point. Please also note, that I did not at any time claim the "Latvian source" was not a WP:RS, but as I have explained above in my point 3, it just happens not to be a source we can use for our wikitable based on the "ECB method data approach", as it unilaterally opted to pick its own and different "data forecast approach" for fiscal criteria compliance indication.
Ad.5: Once again: You should read my written introduction lines again. They clearly have already fully informed the reader, that the monthly color status is only an indication whether or not the country complied with the criteria in the specific month according to the published "ECB method", and how the "Polish Ministry of Finance" calculated the reference value limits according to that method. So the reader should note and be aware, that while he can entirely trust all country specific data as 100% accurate and set in stone (as this is provided directly by Eurostat - which is the same data provider ECB always use), the compliance colors in the table should only be understood as indicative, and that we have to wait for ECB to publish their official evaluation report for any specific assessment month in concern, in order to verify if the country's indicated criteria compliance indeed do exist. Then you state my POV and WP:OR can not be included as a source for the data, and that I should equally use the Latvian+Polish source? Sorry, but now you are again mixing up the past and the present. Please do only consider my latest version of the data table from 14 March, and that this version indeed solely is based on "Polish source" + "Eurostat sources". I have already agreed with TDL to align and correct all published "Reference value limits" so that they 1:1 reflect the same published values by the "Polish source". As both the "Polish source" and my own previous work happened to follow the same "ECB method data approach" they happen to be identical (except for the first 4 months of 2012 - where the Polish source was not aware about the "outlier clause" - which I btw can proof they were as their published "April report" do not match the findings by the official "ECB April report" on this issue - but this is irrelevant to the case as we in the table anyway only need to start showing the monthly data starting from May 2012 - so it does not matter the Polish Ministry of Finance was wrong about that ahead of that month).
Again please note: The "Latvian source" do not qualify as a source for our "monthly data table", because it have adopted a different data approach in regards of evaluating fiscal compliance compared to the ECB method (and funny enough the Latvian source indeed never claimed to have adopted the "ECB method data approach"). Then you made a claim that the data anyway is irrelevant for the article as it only represent "speculation and estimates for the past". This is not true at all. You have missed the entire point here, which is that all "country specific data" is final direct data extracted from the "Eurostat database" as it looked inside the particular month of concern in the past, which provide a fully and identical data collection compared to if ECB had published an assessment report for the specific assessment month in concern. The only matter of uncertainty we have a discussion on is "when to define and exclude outliers for calculation of monthly reference value limits for HICP and Interest rates" (to decide if the background color should be red or green). The "Polish source" have done this job for us, and my introduction line already highlighted the reader should be aware that these limit values (in combination with the colors in the table) should only be considered to be an indication, which would need final approval by an ECB report to be officially confirmed. This fact, however does not render the data collection useless or without any value. On the contrary the "monthly data" for Latvia still represents a high informational value to the reader as it: 1) Map the country's ongoing progress towards full convergence, 2) Showcase how the ECB method work with the convergence criteria changing on a monthly basis and with the country having the right to request a renewed ECB convergence criteria check the moment the country believe to have 5 green boxes.
Ad.6: No, your request for me not to reply is fully inappropriate. You should please refrain from lecturing me about the policies. Let us please have a specific intelligent debate about the exact merits of the case. My response to you is, that our current debate is not about me having a misunderstanding about the Wikipedia policies, but instead our debate is related to the fact that we currently discuss a highly complicated matter, where some of the details to the case really decides whether or not the content should be included or not. I have now clearly highlighted these details to you, here in my latest reply, and hope you will receive my reply with a positive mind and attitude. My arguments stated above should not be blindly rejected. If you disagree with me on some of my stated points, then let us have a specific debate about the specific points you disagree with, and then let us attempt to move things forward on that background. You should not reject/ignore my carefully crafted reply, as a matter that do not deserve your attention and second consideration. Our current debate is not about the general Wikipedia policies, but instead about some specific important details, that either need your approval for inclusion for the Wikipedia article/subarticle based on my arguments, or in the alternative need you to be more specific about on what points you think it still strives against the Wikipedia policy after reading my reply. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Danish Expert, if you don't read the policies and keep failing to understand the points made by other editors, you may experience hard times on this website. I cannot and will not keep arguing over and over again about the same things. Your tables may be covered by WP:NOTSTATS, an indented section starting with the title "Proof that the claim made by the Latvian Central Bank was incorrect" is both unencyclopedic and POV (and, yes, I did see you now changed it to read Note), and generally, a lot of the stuff is/was POV and OR. If you also fail to understand why a list of now 41 (and previously 37) footnotes is a bit of a problem, I cannot force you to. However, noone (apart from administrative action, perhaps) will restrict you from starting a new article (or editing on this or any other page) if you so desire. Then, people may or may not debate on its notability or any issues it may have.
I am not trying to lecture you really, but I do feel you don't read or at least don't understand the policies. For example, WP:TRUTH (which is not a policy) is an essay full of sarcasm (it states so itself) making fun of people sticking to proving their own individual "truth", so using the link to this essay on your arguments about the truth you believe that backs your opinion is quite ironic.
And, I do not want to debate more, because we have made our points, we have taken actions, and we have even had the opinion and the action of an administrator. There is not much more left to debate upon. Perhaps, and only perhaps, your material could fit on a separate article and be linked here, but, there's clear consensus against certain arguments you make. However, as we may all be wrong, you could try to bring this to the attention of another administrator (someone of your choice, who perhaps may agree with your opinion) or make it into an RFC, or use some form of dispute resolution. But, for the time being, there are some issues on which all the other editors disagree with you. Therefore, I suggested you read the policies these editors (including myself) used to argue against your points. However, since you considered this as a lecture, do accept my apology and act as you see fit. Heracletus (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox updated (with a request for your re-evaluation)[edit]

As a service note to all of you, I have now updated my sandbox so that the 2nd+3rd+4th introduction paragraph has been reformulated, so that it now has been both clarified+simplified into a shorter and more neutral version. Finally I also corrected the convergence limit for the assement month February 2013, so that it now comply 1:1 with the Polish source. I will not introduce anymore changes to the sandbox, until you have posted a new returned opinion (partly based on the reformulated lines, and partly based on my clarified argumentation posted here in this Revert subchapter of our debate). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't need to argue that if this gets long it needs to go to different article. Still it should not go anywhere before everyone agrees it isn't pure OR. Now about that... We do have an official published "ECB method", which is consistently published in the same way throughout all the published ECB convergence reports in 1996-2012. No, what we have is set of methods by which these reports are done. There apparently is not an official method published by ECB that would apply outside these reports. Therefore assuming that ECB will use this method in in future is pure speculation. And, with exact method unknown, there is no reason to claim that one or the other method used by someone else to approximate same values is wrong. Now if you were to find a published article that said "ECB usually uses method x. Look how Latvians use method y instead to cheat us all" it would be wholly different thing. What we've been trying to explain to you is that in absence of actual ECB data in the given period and no source to back you up on this, you cannot say that the Latvian source applies any less than the Polish source and you need to present them both equally. Your argument for why Latvian source is wrong is that it excludes certain countries, however they do not deny doing this([2]), so they aren't really trying to mislead anyone, maybe for whatever reason they expect those countries not to be taken into account by ECB - it's just that their speculations on what ECB might do are different. Also as far as I am concerned there is no way this debate can be about anything other than Wikipedia policies until you start following them. Please, read them and reconsider how you can improve your upcoming article to follow them before you post again, because your replays are excessively long, but at the same time we seem to be getting nowhere ~~Xil (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
@Xil: You are wrong to state nothing has progressed in our debate! TDL already in his earlier reply above directly stated and agreed, that it was a significant move forward for our debate now that I had managed to find the "Polish source" to properly source the data table's "Monthly reference value limits". As you pointed out in your reply above, the introduction lines ahead of the data table has now also been formulated in non-POV language and you have received my accept for the solution that we can move the full monthly data table (by its version reflected by my sandbox) into a sub-article if our debate here at the talkpage end up to find this would indeed be appropriate/helpful and fully within wikipedia's policies. Please do not offend me by claiming that nothing has happened. I am sorry for my long reply above to Heracletus, but in his reply to me he was very non-specific and shooted around in east and west, which is why I also had to reply detailed to each of his shots. Of course I will now take time to read up on the ground policies of Wikipedia, as you have all requested me to do, but I am rather sure it wont change anything (as I strongly doubt there exist any clauses I forgot about, despite I admit it has been around 3 years ago since I read them from top to bottom when I started up my account). We shall see.
Except from that, I want to thank you for a positive and specific reply to the debate, and your link above to the Latvian Central Bank's data page. This link however directly proofs my point, that the Latvian Central Bank's published Investor Report did not use the official "ECB method data approach" for debt+deficit evaluation (as the investor report opted to enforce their own unique data approach by comparing forecasted 2012 deficit data with the deficit criteria limit in October 2012). As you can see at the Latvian Central Bank's webpage, they have at this place more correctly only listed how the "2011 deficit data" complied with the criteria limit (which is the same as the "ECB method data approach"). So at the "Latvian Central Banks Maastricht criteria webpage", they did not utilize the same akward and somewhat misleading "forecast approach" utilized in their Investor Report. My introduction lines in the sandbox specificly also refer to the Latvian Central Banks Investor Report, as this document and its conclusions could not be compared to the findings of the published "ECB method data approach". In my current sandbox-version, I (in order to meet your request for simplifying the matter) removed the note about the different expectation expressed between the Polish and Latvian authoraties towards whether or not Ireland should count as an outlier after September 2012, as this was not central to the main point to highlight the Investor Report had utilized an incorrect "deficit compliance evaluation data approach" for the now famous "September month" in their Investor Report. If you think it is appropriate that we re-instate a short note to say the Latvian authoraties beside of that flaw, also had a different outlier expectation for the interest rate reference value throughout the months from Oct-2012 until Jan-2013, then this will be fine with me also to include. It however does not change the fact, that the Latvian Investor Report's conclusion and data approach for evaluation of the deficit criteria was incorrect and in all circumstances did not adhere to the published and well described ECB method for how to evaluate a country's deficit data against the "official deficit criteria".
About the published and well described ECB method: The single point where I currently can see your view in this case differs from mine, is that I personally along with Swedbank claim that we can rely on something we call a methods precedence. In the legal world you can be judged on precedence according to the same argument and grounds as found in a previous similair legal case. The same apply to the framework for the ECB's convergence evaluations. ECB developed and established their final data approach in the EMI reports of 1995-1998, and since then in each and every single published ECB convergence report referred to their data method as being completely adhering to what had been outlined and developed in full details in their previous EMI reports during 1995-1998. And ECB in each of their subsequent official convergence reports provided an equally worded grey-box discription of how this method works for each criteria. I can proof that to you. Please have a look at file-page 8 (equal to report page 7) in the latest 2012 ECB convergence report where they explicitly refer to the EMI reports (by the line: "This report builds on principles set out in previous reports published by the ECB, and prior to this by the EMI, in order to ensure continuity and equal treatment."), and for the matter of principle please also look at file-page 20 (equal to report page 19) where they in a similar way describe the method for evaluating "Legal compliance" (by the line: "The legal assessment broadly follows the framework of the previous reports of the ECB and the EMI on legal convergence."), and please read all the grey boxes both in this 2012 report (Box 1-5 in chapter 2) and all the identical boxes in the previous ECB reports. If you do that, you will find my claim has all along been completely correct, that the same basic "ECB evaluation method" indeed has excisted and been adhered to by ECB throughout the past 18 years. This really proofs my case: We indeed have some ground rules and paragraphs in the so-called "ECB method" to rely on, which never will be changed to some different method rules just out of the blue, but remain as a constant method for as long as the EU treaty and protocol definitions stay constant. A future change of these rules would require that the politicians wrote new treaty articles which changed the general data approach and evaluation criteria, and as a matter of fact no such treaty changes have so far been introduced/passed (which is proofed by my links to the consolidated current treaty text, and the links listed to the original protocals and criteria definitions written by the Maastricht treaty itself, as you will find listed in the Euro convergence criteria article).
About the so-called undefined "data outlier criteria": I agree with you the ECB method never quantified a specific limit for when they will consider a benchmark country to be "significantly above the eurozone average" - and thus disquallify the country as an outlier. This is however the only missing slice of an otherwise well described ECB method. Please note that the outlined "ECB method", to the contrary of the somewhat misleading note at the Latvian Central Banks webpage you linked to, for 18 years all along have stated that whenever a benchmark country (one of the 3 EU countries selected for the HICP benchmark) posses "elevated 12m-average interest rates being significantly above the 12m GDP-weighted eurozone average WHILE also experiencing a situation "without complete free funding access at financial markets" then it shall be classified as an outlier. So the criteria for the interest rate benchmarks classification of outliers has as a matter of fact clearly defined two conditions to be met for a benchmark country to potentially be disquallified from the benchmark as an outlier. In regards of the first condition, ECB unfortunately never quantified what "significantly above" means (which is something I indeed acknowledge leave a certain amount of uncertainty about what to expect), but for the second condition ECB has made a clear-cut note about what the words "without complete free funding access at financial markets" means, as they descriped this apply whenever a country's government is still the recipient of tranches from an international bailout loan (meaning we have no uncertainty about this last condition). You will find the proof about what I have written to you about the well established "outlier criteria" in this paragraph, if you read ECB's own note about it at file-page 10 (equal to report page 9, bottom note of Box 1) in the latest 2012 ECB convergence report where they explicitly describe how the HICP outlier criteria has been defined by previous EMI+ECB reports, and in the same report at file-page 17 (equal to report page 16, bottom note of Box 4) you will find an equally detailed description published about the criteria for when/how ECB defines "Interest rate outliers"). The entire ECB method including its definition of how the outlier criteria works, is something you also can find a summarized description for if you read our wikipedia article named Euro convergence criteria.
Bottom line is: We only have uncertainty about what the "ECB method" exactly mean, when it states that a benchmark country shall be defined as an "HICP benchmark outlier" when being "significantly above" the 12m eurozone average for HICPs, and this is similar for the "Interest rate benchmark outlier criteria" where we also do not know for sure what "significantly above" means. Except from that, the method in regards of the economic convergence criteria as a matter of fact has been very well-described. The only other uncertainty we are faced with, is in case a country deliver a deficit in the interval from 3.0%-3.5%, which would mean it perhaps - despite of having slightly exceeded the deficit criteria limit - still can be judged by some other second hand criteria to have complied (but by the end of the day this will also be something solely decided by the fact whether or not the country holds an open ongoing EDP in the eyes of the Commission+Ecofin Council, so the ECB method will always limit itself mainly to take notice of the official EDP status of the country and limit itself only to post their attached oppinion about how they understand this situation to the Commission+Ecofin Council with a potential inclusion of a recommendation if they think the Commission should perhaps reconsider their position, but by the end of the day it will be a final call and matter for the Commission+Ecofin council to decide, and for a country with an open ongoing EDP that ECB thinks should be abrogated they will in their report conclusion limit themself to note that they found a "full criteria compliance under the assumption that the Commission+Council subsequently decides to abrogate the country's EDP").
Our debate decision will also impact another Wikipedia article: It shall also be noted, that our current debate is also directly related to the Template:Euro convergence criteria, which is an essential part of the Enlargement of the eurozone article. If we decide to ban the publication of monthly convergence data at Wikipedia (as some of you proposed we should on a general line), then this would also mean we have to stop running our "monthly data updates" for the overall template, which we have been running in a similar way since January 2013 - where we display the convergence data for the "most recent month" (btw with TDL being fully aware of the strength and weaknesses of doing so, but previously since his engagement into this topic in January 2013 has approved we could do it for the time being, which really should be another clear sign towards Heracletus that I did not act in bad faith here when I decided jump on to duplicate the approach into the Latvian euro coins article). The end result if we ban the publication of these "monthly convergence data" would be, that any country specific convergence data only would be published one time every 2nd year (when ECB publish their ordinary convergence report), with no chance for readers to whatch their candidate country's ongoing progress towards complying with all criteria, and without getting the chance graphically to learn in a fast convenient way how the "ECB method generally works by principal", where countries are granted the right to request a renewed compliance check each time we enter a new month of the year, according to the observation of how their own HICP+Interest rate values and the corresponding reference value limits will change and compare at a monthly basis during the course of the year.
I hope you will consider my reply to you above (which not only you - but also other editors are welcome to respond to) as insightful and another step forward in our debate, and that you will continue to post fact-based argumentation as you have done straight from the start and until now. A few people in this current debate have misjudged my competence and knowledge in this field and my degree of understanding the Wikipedia policies, and I hope and believe you will not fall into the same pithole. I fully acknowledge and agree with you, that my "monthly data table" operate with "color indication" and "method uncertainty", but for as long as we notify the reader about this uncertainty, and for as long we have fully referenced values and comply with the notability criteria for inclusion, then I just think it is also appropriate for us to do so. In regards of the "extensive note list", I will fully accept to remove it as a direct note-list displayed below the table (in order not to clut-up the article space) IF you on the other hand will accept that we still keep those notes available inside the table as "hidden" point-popupp-info (only to popupp if the reader points his mouse on the link). Danish Expert (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
And once again one goes to prove that they have done their original research right, but doesn't consider what actually has just been said to them. Your sandbox still contains text that doesn't give equal and unbiased treatment to sources. Perhaps you'll find WP:NOTOR essay more useful as it elaborates on what is and what is not Original research more than the policy itself. ~~Xil (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Convergence criteria[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to include official report that was just released, not Wikipedia's estimates for May? ~~Xil (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done TDL (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Latvian maiden[edit]

What is that? A symbol of some kind? Needs explanation (an article?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The caption beneath the pictures of the one-euro and two-euro coins links to a description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.4.237 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Latvia and the euroLatvian euro coins – The euro convergence articles for all other countries which have already switched to the euro have article names ending with 'euro coins', while articles related to countries which have not yet switched to the euro have article names ending in 'and the euro'. Latvia has already switched to the euro and completed the last stage, which was scrapping the requirement to display dual prices. Frenzie23 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

content/title[edit]

The article is mainly about Latvia getting the Euro currency and how it qualified; in addition to a small section on the form of its coins. The present title is therefore a bit misleading. I don't want to jump in with a move/split proposal, but first would like to explore options:

  • Leave as is (people will think of the currency when they see the word coin?)
  • split into a numismatic (coin) article and a currency article
  • move to a better title

comments are welcome! L.tak (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The rational of the RM above was to maintain consistent naming conventions across like articles following the WP:CRITERIA (ie Italian euro coins and Greek euro coins). I think there is some merit to this, but many of the articles on "legacy" euro states don't have much coverage of their adoption of the currency. Perhaps we should consistently use the broader title for all articles: Latvia and the euro? Or maybe the shorter Latvian euros? I feel like a split is overkill since the article is quite short and the current content fits nicely in the same article, provided it is titled broadly enough. TDL (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"Latvian euros" sounds at least as misleading as the current titel. "Latvia and the euro" is a fitting title for the current content. Boivie (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latvian euro coins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latvian euro coins. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)