Talk:Language policy in Latvia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Demographics

I really don't see the point of the comparison of Russian-speakers in Latvia with Walloons in Belgium. French is one of the official languages of Belgium since the country's founding in 1831. The Walloons comprise the bulk of the Francophone community, one of three officially recognised groups whose languages enjoy co-official status. Is this this the point of the comparison: that the Russophone group deserves co-official status in Latvia, just like the Walloons in Belgium? The problem is that there is no international consensus regulating why some countries are officially bi-/multilingual (e.g. Canada, Finland, Norway), and others are not (Latvia, France, Japan, etc.) And why drag in the heritage of Yugoslav language politics into an article on Latvia? —Zalktis (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the point as to show an exceptional situation of Russian-speakers in Latvia. Mentioning the French-speakers of Belgium is in right place to show place of Russian-speakers in Latvia within context: another significant language minority in Europe.
Does the Russophone group deserves co-offical status in Latvia or doesn't, is up to readers according to NPOV. But our job of contributors is to give them information. If a group is unique in Europe (over one third of population and no official status of language), it deserves mentioning.
About Yugoslav case. If we count Serbish as different language form Bosnian, Serbish-speakers in BiH could be the second (in %) linguistic minority in Europe, and Russian-speakers in Latvia then could be the third. However, this separation isn't a clear fact - until Yugoslav wars both idioms (and Croatian one) were considered one Serbocroatian language. So there is reason to mention that.Rigaer (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I see what the "context" you mention is here. There is no consensus on what is the "right" way to do things regarding official and minority languages, not even amongst members of the Council of Europe. For example, Swedish-speakers nowadays only make up about 6% of the population of Finland, but yet Swedish still retains its co-official status with a language that is the mother tongue for the other 94% (see: Languages of Finland). Does this imply that every country in Europe should follow Finland's model, and make all languages spoken by over 5% of the population co-official? (By the way, Finland recognised Russian as a minority language way back when, but seems to be having trouble living up to its CoE obligations after the increase of immigrants from Russia since the 1990s...) On the other hand, more people speak Kurdish in Sweden than Romani Chib, but the latter is an officially recognised minority language, while the former is not. How is that logical? I still feel that the comparisons here to Belgium and former Yugoslavia are out of place, as the context is unclear (and the unity or disunity of the Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrin language is also a highly politicised issue). How would it look if we added to Malaysia#Culture a statement along the lines of: "Ethnic Chinese make up 24% of the population, making them a significant minority without language rights. A country where the situation is even more pronounced is Latvia, where the Russian-speaking minority comprises 36% of the total population."? Pretty incongruous, if you ask me. — Zalktis (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus on what is the "right" way to do things regarding official and minority languages (..) Does this imply that every country in Europe should follow - Article doesn't name any "right" way and doesn't state if any country in Europe should follow any model - it just shows the context. To say that X% have Y rights is not all we can do for Wikipedia - we can show if this is ordinary practice, or if minorities similar in size usually have more or less rights. And - are there bigger minorities with smaller rights? Or smaller minorities with bigger rights?
the unity or disunity of the Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrin language is also a highly politicised issue - exactly. That's why article doesn't say if it is one or several languages - it says, under which assumption Russian-speakers of Latvia are definitely the second linguistic minority in Europe and mentionsthe possibility to count in different ways.
Examples inside EU are more connected, than between Malaysia and Latvia. In case of other circumstances being the same, it would be better to compare Malaysia with India, Indonesia, China and their attitude to minorities. Probably not in section of culture, but the question is significant, and Wikipedia speaks of the state of Chinese schools in Malaysia. Example of Latvia could be interesting, too - to show if the state of Chinese in Malaysia is usual, comparatively free or comparatively hard restricted in wider context of the whole world or the world of Abrahamic tradition.Rigaer (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion that I hope will be taken as constructive. It is based on the example of France, mentioned by Rigaer in the section below, which has paired articles (e.g. Languages of France/Language policy in France):
  • Firstly, create a new article Languages of Latvia. Move the statistics about mother tongue, language proficiency, etc. there, and fill it out with other statistics and facts about the actual usage of different of languages (including Latgalian) in Latvia.
  • Second, rename the current section "Demographics" to "Minority and immigrant languages". Use this section to describe the status of and policies directed towards (i.e. the true scope of the present article) minority languages in Latvia. The question of the status of non-minority, immigrant languages in Latvia should also be mentioned, since new groups (labour migrants, asylum seekers, etc.) are also making their presence felt in Latvia today, too. Provide a link to Languages of Latvia for those interested in knowing the numbers of speakers involved.
How does this sound? —Zalktis (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I agree to create a specific article Languages of Latvia, but statistics are strongly connected to politics (e.g., which languages can get certain functions if not restricted?). So there is sense to copy them, not to move. 2. I prefere to speak about policy, dividing stuff by themes, as it is done now (education, official use... media can be made a new section), because policy towards majority and minority languages is strongly connected: e.g., if there is mandatory use of a language in field A, it concerns also other languages, restricting thir use. 3. We could move demographics towards the end of article or history to the beginning - making a section "Background" of historical and demographical ones.Rigaer (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article Languages of Latvia will be quite nice and handy. It might be the {{main}} article of the Demographics section. Saying this I think we cannot totally remove the elephant in the room: the huge Russophone minority makes Latvian language laws quite unusual and causing an unusual tension. While the Russophones believe that their numbers alone warrant some recognition of the language status; the Latvian-speakings feels that their language is under threat of shrinking its usage or even extinction and that their rights to communicate in their mother tongue need legal protection. That is why while the rest of the world writes the language laws to shield the language minorities from discriminations, Latvia is among the few countries directing the law the other way.
Thus, the numbers are important, comparison in this regard with the other European countries might be important too. On the other hand I do not think we need to have both 1987 and 2000 censuses, the numbers are reasonably close and the duplication just takes the space. I would like to see the notion of influence of demographics on the language laws to be spelled out as somebody's notable opinion, surely there are plenty of such trivial notions Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Russophones believe that their numbers alone warrant some recognition of the language status In normal countries this is called "democracy", as in "people's power". Alex, what else but "numbers alone" give the group voice in functioning democracy? Ethnic purity and/or bloodlines, as in Latvia? RJ CG (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The demographic factor is most influential in the case of the status of Russian in Latvia (and perhaps Livonian, but for opposite reasons). It is not really as much of a factor for other traditional minority and regional languages in Latvia (Latgalian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romani, etc.). Perhaps the status of Russian deserves a separate section including the current arguments for a) the status quo; b) Russian as a co-official language; and c) Russian as a minority language according to the CoE Charter (mentioned in the article as one of the international treaties Latvia is not planning to sign). By the way, with regards the latter option, allow me to quote the Charter's Preamble (my italics):

Stressing the value of interculturalism and multilingualism and considering that the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them [1]

Furthermore, with regards to Russian, I think the current article might benefit from an amalgamation of the information currently under the different sections "Demography" and "Positions of political actors and public opinion" as they help frame the societal discourse, rather than express the policies in force per se. As for moving the historical background closer to the beginning, I'd be for it; but, then again, as an historian, this just reflects my own professional bias! —Zalktis (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More and more, the "demographics" section is looking like a "Russian language usage vs. Latvian language usage" section. This article is supposed to be about policy, and not arguing that practically everyone in the country (supposedly) speaks Russian. Such information properly belongs in Languages of Latvia. —Zalktis (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Both Latvian and Russian Wikipedias have article on Russian language in Latvia - maybe this would be more approporiate ? Also here's an interesting .pdf authored by State language centre, in which BTW this government agency gives a different description of Language policy - it says that Latvian language policy aims to protect all languages spoken in Latvia, taking particular care of two languages that originate here - Latvian and Liiv not quite what the intro says now (currently it indeed seems to reflect, as Zalktis pointed out, belief that Russian deserves some status due to nummber of speakers) - would it be possible to reflect this referenced view of the government in the lead and then quote sources which critisize this view saying that Russian should have some status given the nummber of speakers (and as such criticism does indeed exist, there surely are sources to support that) if that is desired ~~Xil...sist! 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Re-written. Now the introduction is that governemntal commitment to special care care of two languages, quoting facts from the law concerning statuses and facts from statistics concerning what makes the situation specific - significant Russian-speaking minority.
Introduction doesn't (and didn't) reflect belief whether Russian should have some status and why. It gives (gave) information on what is specific in Latvian language situation and policy, from which the readers may make various coclusions.Rigaer (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Since demographics really isn't policy, I've renamed it for the third "background". looking like a "Russian language usage vs. Latvian language usage" section - why "versus", not "and"? Besides, the reality is that these are two languages most spoken in Latvia. arguing that practically everyone in the country (supposedly) speaks Russian - section gives the same information on Latvian as on Russian, except 1989 mother tongue statistics for Latvian, which I haven't found. Languages of Latvia would need more information, in connection with other censuses etc.Rigaer (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added material to this section to reflect the wider range of minority languages in Latvia. Russian isn't the only one that benefits/suffers from the policies currently in place... —Zalktis (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Concepts in Latvian policy

While Russian is native for more than one third of population, concepts of latviskums ([ethnic] Latvianness) and the nation state are dominant in Latvian policy. I don't think it is correct to call some concept dominant based on programme of one party, besides I think this is a mistranslation - their programme says: LZS augsti vērtē kultūras darbinieku ieguldījumu latviskuma saglabāšanā. and that is the only mention of latviskums in it. It dosen't say anything about "ethnic" and given that this is about culture it would be more correct to translate it as "Latvian culture" not some obscure Latvianness ~~Xil...sist! 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to call some concept dominant based on programme of one party - TB/LNNK, TP were mentioned too. 3 from 4 ruling factions in Saeima. About LZS - we can choose another quotations like "Zemnieku savienība ir politisks spēks, kuram vienmēr visaugstākā vērtība bijusi nacionāla valsts" or Veidosim Latviju kā nacionālu, daiļu un spēcīgu valsti, ar latviešu valodu kā vienīgo valsts valodu un latviešu kultūru kā dominējošo. Mēs iestājamies par to, ka tikai latviešu tautai ir tiesības noteikt Latvijas valsts nākotni. Thank you, I think that the last "only the [people of] ethnic Latvians have right to decide future of Latvian state" shows more, and it's position of all ZZS, including not only LZS, but also LZP.Rigaer (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then why don't you say it like that ? It would be perfectly okay if you wouldn't use wording which attributes these ideas to every party - isn't parties like ForHRUL and Harmony Centre involved in politics and in Saeima ? Also none of your sources say "ethnic" and it acctualy isn't relevant to the article given that it is solely about languages ~~Xil...sist! 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't attribute these ideas to all parties - I say they're dominant. ForHRUL and HC are in constant opposition - dominant is exactly the view of TP (biggest coalition party) and ZZS (in government without interruption since 2002), if we count views of smaller ruling parties LPP/LC and TB/LNNK balancing one another.
2. Latviešu tauta, which I mention in the last quotation, is exactly ethnic. Latvijas tauta would be civic nationalism.
3. An introductory definition in "What? Who?" style is usually good, but is it needed here? Compare with Language policy in France. 4. If you insist on "What-style", what would you agree with as an introduction? In "What-style" I see approximately these opportunities: Language policy of/in Latvia is based on support of the sole official language, Latvian. or Language policy of/in Latvia is based on nationalism, more often ethnic than civic. Rigaer (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I still don't see any reason to generalize views of some parties 2. Acctualy I wanted to point this in previous comment - Latvijas tauta is rarely used and some would use latvieši to refer to inhabitants of Latvia 3. Yes, it is a commonly accepted style to have the subject of the article explained, it provides a bit of intro without juming right to the subject 4. The first variation seems OK, the second one describes your personal POV. ~~Xil...sist! 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1. An introduction should give an overview - what kind of policy is led? I suggest to show, which ideas concerning language policy are dominant (i.e., we have to generalize positions positions of TP, ZZS, JL, possibly with TB/LNNK, LPP/LC, which are accepted in the governing coalitions). We can unite them all in "Positions of political actors", together with the permanent opposition (PCTVL, SC), but then the situation is less clear from introduction. 2. use latvieši to refer to inhabitants of Latvia - this is clearly not the case, because "only inhabitants of Latvia have rights to decide future of Latvian state" is far from ZZS policy on voting rights for non-citizens (example). Besides, this use (rarely, but possible) is a clear example of ethnocentrism, like if all inhabitants of Russia were called русские. 3. As I've shown, another expression can be used in an article on similar subject. 4. The second is supported with references I mention (nacionāla valsts, latviskums, latviešu tauta...) from most of ruling parties. I can however agree with the first option too, moving ideology and dominant concepts in discourse in an other section.Rigaer (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Even though these parties are in opposition in Saeima, they have large influence in some regions and in political disscusions. 2. What I was saying is that latviešu tauta is used instead of Latvijas tauta, that is the inhabitants or the citizens depending on context 3. The article on France is not of superiour quality to be used as example and this is just a standard, which makes article look better - I see no need to argue about that. 4. I don't agree with you - your sources don't say anything about "more ethnic than civic", your sources may confirm your own views on the matter, however they don't say exactly what you think and if you add your own thoughts that's your POV not what the sources say, why can't you just add the facts and let readers make their own conclusions ? This is also the problem in the first case - your sources give views of certaint parties, which you believe are dominant and you apply their views to everyone, altough your sources still are about certaint parties not about all parties which have been making Language policies in Latvia for last twenty years ~~Xil...sist! 11:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Subject of the article is contemporary policy; views of opposition aren't dominant there. 4. "My sources" are as mine as yours, they represent different positions. you apply their views to everyone - no, I say they're dominant. If the views of ruling parties aren't, which are? not about all parties which have been making Language policies in Latvia for last twenty years - it's not the aim of this article (of course, you can expand "historical background", including views of CPL in 1988, PFL in 1992 etc.), for a historical review we could create something similar to Language legislation in Belgium. Rigaer (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For both parties, might I suggest taking a look at Ethnic democracy#Latvia and Estonia for some inspiration...? —Zalktis (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not questoning weather Latvia is ethnic or civic democracy, it's just that Rigaer seems to be interpreting his sources in favour of his own views. I think this article can be written to fairly reflect all views, which can't be done by misinterpretating the sources, especialy given how controversial the matter is ~~Xil...sist! 11:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Martintg edits

1989 census data in connection with 2000 census data show changes, that happened during 1990s.
There are different views on whether Latvia was occupied by USSR and if yes - what was the time of occcupation.
There are different causes which could explain decrease of Russian schools. E. g., 54. A number of parents belonging to ethnic minorities increasingly make the choice to send their children to Latvian schools (ECRI, 2007), emigration (OSI, 2001), p. 291, Latvian authorities have closed a number of Russian-language schools. In several cases, these decisions were made despite the apparent viability of these schools Ibid, p. 292Rigaer (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure there are many reasons for school closures, but the main one is this: [2], the steepest decline being around 1992-1994 period, when many Russian speakers opted to return. Martintg (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of sections

I propose to give first what is actually policy: "Legal framework", "Official use", "Education", then its backgrounds: "Political", "Demographical", "Historical" and finally "International recommendations". Rigaer (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Moskovskie Novosti

A statement from the introduction to the interview with Tatjana Ždanoka in Moskovskie Novosti has been repeatedly presented unattributed as if it were an established fact from a WP:Reliable source. While I have no real objection to leaving this particular fact/interpretation in the article, I feel it necessary for a potentially non-Russian reading audience (i.e. the expected audience of English Wikipedia) to be told the context of this statement.

Cf. the following from WP:RS#News organizations (emphasis mine):

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

It is getting difficult to WP:Assume good faith when the attribution of this statement is removed repeatedly. Whether she is right or wrong (depends on your personal opinions), Ždanoka has an axe to grind here, and MN is obviously giving her a sympathetic platform for her views. This is, as the policy guidelines say, contentious and should therefore be attributed. Perhaps a better source could be found? Such as some less obviously POV scholarly research (e.g. that done on Russians in the Baltic states by Elena Jurado or Pål Kolstø)? Or what about an official statement by one of the Council of Europe's or OSCE's minorities watchdogs? —Zalktis (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where was it that I edited that reference to specifically state it was a Zhdanoka interview? Sadly, "For Human Rights in a United Latvia" is often more like "For Restoration of Russian Hegemony over a Subservient Latvia." —PētersV (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was deleted as "unnecessary." I'm sorry, RJ CG, not everyone is going to click on links, and it will just be funny characters to anyone who is not fluent in Russian. Any such Novosti et al. statements get attributed as negative Russian press along with context. Similarly, virulently anti-Baltic EU politicians don't get quoted as "official EU representatives condemned Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania for..." without additional context. If you don't like statements put into proper and responsible context then the alternative is to remove them. —PētersV (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Since when does attributing a statement to its source count as WP:OR?! —Zalktis (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest once more that you try to raise over your patriotic zeal and try to look at the bigger picture. Claim that any content not to the true Baltic patriot's liking should not be trusted could have two possible outcomes. One is to create ethnically sterile version of reality, written by racially pure authors approved by some covenant of true Latvians (Estonians, Lithuanians) and another is to accept that, since any content from both Russian and Baltic sources should not be trusted, as it offends patriots on other side (and, to hammer the point deeper, exclude any sources based on Russian or Baltic publications). I truly hope that you, being raised American, do not approve former option and latter option is not viable, as 95% of sources dealing with Russo-Baltic relationships written by Russians, Balts or heavily based on their publications. Therefore I hope that you agree with me that any "patriotic" exclusion of materials is wrong. So what road do we have? Yep, continue that rooted and imperfect path of selecting chaff from grains, one by one. And I agree with you that most opinionated pieces we're using in our edits should be directly attributed. Some authors are either on Russophobe crusade or can't make peace with current version of Latvian statehood. So, would statement we discuss be coming from Mrs. Zhdanok, I would be first to qualify "according to T. Zhdanok". But statement was in introduction to an interview with her and therefore was coming directly from Moskovskie Novosti. So it leaves us with the question "Is Novosti reliable". And, in accordance with EE WP tradition that most statements from major news outlets aren't qualified, I would say that "Novosti" should be treated as RS here. RJ CG (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I have no fundamental problem with this bit of information being included in the article. My insistence that it should be attributed stems from the circumstance which you yourself admit in the edit summary for 17:56, 27 March 2008: "Zhdanoka has nothing to do with the statement, it is in editorial preface" (emphasis mine). In line with WP:RS#News organizations, as I already quoted above: "When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious." MN, like the inerviewee in the article, feels that the treatment of Russians in Latvia is appalling, even though the government of Latvia obviously feels otherwise. Ergo the issue is contentious. And should be attributed. As per WP:RS#News organizations. What's that got to do with my alleged patriotism? Look at the edits I've actually made to the article, and you'll see that I have a distinct pro-Romani bias... Mangávas, mò ráklo! —Zalktis (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"For Human Rights in a United Latvia" is often more like "For Restoration of Russian Hegemony over a Subservient Latvia". If you could find in ForHRUL actions, claims and requests any demand for giving Russian language a higher status in Latvia than to Latvian language or more voting rights to Russian-speaking population than to Latvian-speaking one or hegemony of Russia in the expanded EU, that would be a sensational and great contribution to ForHRUL article. Sadly what you do is just unsourced political accusation, in the same time going far from the article's topic - Language policy in Latvia. Rigaer (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a widely known aberration - once legalized inequality becomes societal norm, ideas of eqality between different racial/ethnic/language groups are often viewed as abominable by this society. It took Southern States in the USA almost a century to get over idea of legally equal rights for whites and "colored" and many groups still argue that real-life equality is still not reached today. RJ CG (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the Turks in Germany would constitute a bigger linguistic minority without official language status, so should this statement by Ždanoka be even included? Martintg (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no-one else seems to be looking, I found a scholarly, non-partisan source that says basically the same thing as the point referred to in the Ždanoka article. Problem solved! —Zalktis (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested to see WP:RS claiming that Turks constitute bigger percentage of the Germany's population than Russophones of Latvia's. RJ CG (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why I failed this GA

I feel that this article does not meet GA criteria. Let me explain why.

  • Various sections contain a mixture of prose and timeline, such as the "Demographic background" section. There are numerous one-sentence paragraphs and most of them begin with dates.
  • Choppy sentances easily spotted. For example, "Consequently, the use of Russian language increased and it started to dominate in the areas integrated on federal level (state security, railway etc.)." That should be reworded for clarity.
  • In the "Education" section, the table interrupts a sentence. That isn't very professional.
  • Some sections are entirely too short.

Hope that helps, this was my first GA review. Teh Rote (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation/Confirming official point of view? — to User:Xil

Language policy in Latvia is based on special care for the official language, Latvian, and the endangered indigenous Livonian language, while guaranteeing protection to all languages Yes, the official text quoted says that Latvian language policy aims at guaranteeing protection for all the languages spoken in Latvia... Still, this statement, produced by Latvian authorities, is disputed. I suppose we cannot include it in this form as proven truth. I propose: Language policy in Latvia declares.... If you wish, this reservation can be expanded for the special care for Latvian (however I doubt if a significant part of people questions that) and Livonian.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's disputed, you can simply say who disputes it. There is no reason to change the current wording. —PētersV (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case text will look Language policy in Latvia is (..) guaranteeing protection to all languages given as fact and X disputes that... as just somebody's opinion, so I can't agree. I propose verbs "states", "claims" if you don't agree with "declares".Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Latvian policy is that it protects all languages and this idea won't change just because you disagree. Indeed you might expand the lead to state that certaint groups think that the policy is not liberal enough and should be changed ~~Xil * 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Latvian policy is that it protects all languages Do you agree to add "according to authorities" or how you prefere to express the attribution, to fulfil NPOV requirements? About specific criticism - it is in respective sections; I don't want to overload the introduction. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Such addition would imply that it is not true, which is your POV and dosen't properly reflect POV of the state. The attribution is expressed already by giving source. The lead is too short anyway, short mention of the criticism (perhaps mentioning mayor organization criticising the current policy) without going into further details won't kill it. ~~Xil * 11:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It just attributes the statement which otherwise appears in text as fact; that's violation of NPOV. And addition of source cannot break reflecting POV of government - it is already mentioned. The attribution is expressed already by giving source A bit higher in this discussion, there was a bitter arguing about whether there should be an in-text reference to source of one statement - a Moscow newspaper. It was added. Shouldn't the same be done with governmental POV?Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
In an article which describes Language policy in some country one would expect that "policy" refers to policy caried out by the country not politics around the issue, therefore government definition is relevant definition, atributing it to certaint government organisation degrades it to opinion of that organization. The government dosen't deny that it's aim is to enlarge role of Latvian, but the state protects other languages as well to some degree (e.g. it does finance education in other languages in minority schools - even if most subjects in these schools are taught in Latvian, the pupils learn their language as well), thus it does fulfill it's policy in reality and it fits to the definition. Questioning weather the government should care less (or more) about Latvian and pay more (or less) attention to other languages is criticism, not a policy. The press and the government are two diferent things and as it was pointed out above there is a particular guideline stating that when newspapers and magazines are cited there should be in-text reference ~~Xil * 12:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Policy is policy. Statements of policy are policy. Non-governmental statements of support for or criticisms of policy by politicians or private citizens (including pundits in the press) are POVs. Policy is not just another POV.
  • If one believes that what the policy says and what the government does are two different things, that does not make policy the government's "POV" interpretation of governmental action. Policy is policy.
  • If one believes that what the policy says and what the government does are two different things, that is that person's POV. Personal beliefs regarding implementation and execution of policy are POVs. —PētersV (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Statements of policy are policy. Even if we understand policy so wide (which is questionable), these are still statements made from a certain POV. If one believes... It has nothing to do with the question; statement is made from governmental POV (which is disputed). Should there exist an in-text reference? that is that person's POV does anyone ask to present this view as fact? No, just not to present as fact contrary views, too. Personal beliefs regarding implementation and execution of policy are POVs Evaluations by parties - too... And by government - too. Are views of ruling parties not POV?
  • government definition is relevant definition - Try to use it for other cases. "Final solution of Jewish question", e.g. it does fulfill it's policy in reality and it fits to the definition It's not our aim to judge, if it fits. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not our aim to judge, if it fits Is too, we have to define the scope of the article, if there was a proof that government has never ever followed its policy and has in reality caried out policy other then the officialy stated it should be stated in lead. But this isn't the case - the government is carrying out the policy, so questoning weather it caries it out well is criticism. POV of a party is POV of one party, government, however, makes policy, when policy was to join EU we said "Latvia aims to join EU" not "According to State Agency X, Latvia aims to join EU" why should we include such attribution now ? And if you bring up "Final solution to Jewish question" then compare what you want to see with Holocaust, according to agency X of Israeli government, was a genocide ~~Xil * 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
if there was a proof that government has never ever followed its policy Do you call policy what governments say? I call so what they do (it can include saying something, of course). A government cannot not follow its policy. It would be fair to say policy of Latvian government is to say that its actions (see official sources)...
Holocaust was a policy of German state, not of Israel. So, in your construction Wiki would be pressed to call Holocaust a purification of free Europe with an out-of-text reference to Nazi documents.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said the goverment follows its policy i.e. mostly does what it says. In the nazi case they comited a crime and majoroty of sources describing the Holocaust, most likely including the current german government, will state that the nazi policy was to carry out genocide. As Holocaust is important to Israel, it is very well posible that some website of Israeli government would give definition to it, it is also posibile that German government site or any other site in the world wide web could define Holocaust as genocide - now shall we state that it is POV of the site that Holocaust was genocide, because some islamic people believe that there was no such genocide and everything that goes against their belief is just different POV and should be represented as such ? ~~Xil * 23:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said the goverment follows its policy i.e. mostly does what it says It's just your POV. shall we state that it is POV of the site that Holocaust was genocide — Our case is that you wish to give a definition of policy of Latvian government, copying its position (which is disputed), without an in-text reference, which would give attribution to this evaluation. It's like writing about Holocaust as "evacuation of the Jews" with an out-of-text reference to Wannsee protocols. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1. It's just your POV. Considering that the state dosen't protect minoroties also is POV, also I wonder why you didn't care when it just said that Latvian and Livonian are treated with special care.
2. Why are we discussing Holocaust anyway ?
3. The discussion so far has been hairsplitting. I suggest we rewrite the lead to reflect that the Latvian government does provide nominal protection to minority languages, giving some special status to Livonian and Latgalian, but mostly is conserned with increasing use of Latvian and that this policy has been criticised, mentioning other major minority languages and criticism from these communities as well as from Latgalians and Livonians ~~Xil * 15:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that the state doesn't protect minorities also is POV Of course. And both should be given as such - with an attribution that it's opinion of government, or opinion of opposition, or that of x % of surveyed etc. why you didn't care when it just said that Latvian and Livonian are treate:d with special care As far as I know that's not a disputed question.
Why are we discussing Holocaust We aren't, at least me. I'm just showing with other content the way of giving information which you propose here, hoping that it will help you to see that giving governmental opinion about its policy, if this opinion is disputed, needs a clear reference that it's governmental opinion.
In general I agree, but I would like to avoid POV-words like nominal protection (or does provide protection, too). Even if one of these is true, it can be questioned. Someone can think it's not only nominal, someone - that there is not a protection, but destruction. Show, don't tell. It's better to quote what government and its critics say, which laws are adopted, statistics. Verifiability, not absolute truth. Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know that's not a disputed question - why not ? It is in the same sentence you are currently questioning and if you mean outside of the Wikipedia - there would be enogh people questioning if there indeed is such special care or if there is too much care. Exactly what this article should show, if it reflects criticism, not just what certaint political parties think. Could you provide a new version of the first sentence so we can disscus it (preferably avoiding "governement declares" or "document/agency X says", which makes it sound as if writer had doubt) ? And please don't take my every word as if I was saying that article should say exactly that - if I meant so I would have marked the text in some way to show that. ~~Xil * 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
if you mean outside of the Wikipedia - there would be enough people questioning Well, I would be glad if you mark this as governmental opinion, too, - of course, including in article references to those, who question that.
provide a new version of the first sentence - Language policy of Latvia is set of measures in field of language implemented by government, later giving descriptions, or Language policy of Latvia is defined as aiming... in policy documents (formulations can be taken from the law, or guidelines - see, e.g., p. 22).
preferably avoiding "government declares" or "document/agency X says", which makes it sound as if writer had doubt Probably another words are better, but attribution of evaluations is the honesty of Wikipedia and helps to maintain NPOV. If we say "it is so", exactly that makes it sound as if Wikipedia promotes certain POV. If Wiki doesn't take any part, it doesn't mean if it agrees, doubts or negates. It gives facts, also - about opinions (it should give, at least).Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How about Language policy of Latvia is defiened by... followed by respective laws and other rules and short description what each of these provides ? Also shouldn't this be moved to "Language policy of Latvia" as it currently says "in", which IMO is not correct as the policy is not "located" in anything, but rather "belongs" to the country ? ~~Xil * 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
respective laws and other rules and short description what each of these provides - that's too much for introduction - all section "Legal framework" and many things from others... How about "Legal base of Latvian language policy is...", quoting only Constitution - Articles 4 (state language) and 114 (minority rughts to preserve and develop their languages)? It will be neutral since we don't give evaluations if both these provisions are obeyed.
shouldn't this be moved to "Language policy of Latvia" - it's possible, since mostly article deals with policy of Latvia; however, in "Historical background" section, language policy of Russian Empire applied in Latvia is touched, too. Someone could question, how far language policy in Latvian SSR was directed from republic and how much from union, too.Aleksandrs Kuzmins (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Fine, but it dosen't include the title - how about "The basis of Language policy in Latvia are articles 4 and 114 of Constitution of Latvia." 2. Yes, but title shouldn't be based upon references to history it makes - many articles describe history, but don't refer to it in titles - e.g. "History of Latvia" not "History of territory of modern day Latvia". I am not going to insist, though if there is no-one else who agrees with me ~~Xil * 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)