Talk:Latvian Legion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Latvia, a WikiProject related to Latvia.
Latvia Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 16 March

I write introduction to 16 march day as 16 March links there. When article become big enhough, then spilt in Latvian legions and Legions day. AlV 09:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

There are two pages concerning this subject: this one and Latvian Legion. Latvian legion apparently is more exact title therfore I think this page should be merged into it---- Xil/talk 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

This page should be renamed "Latvian Legion", in the singular. Although there were two divisions, there was only one Legion. Zalktis 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why plural?

Petri Krohn, in your last edit, you changed the phrase "Latvian Legion" in the introductory paragraph back to plural. Why? As I explained in my suggestion for a rename above, there was only one Legion, which, on paper least, united all ethnic Latvian units subordinated to the SS/Police/Waffen-SS from 1943 onwards. Compare the consistent use of the singular in German (de:Truppenfahne (Waffen-SS)#Die Lettische Legion), Russian (ru:Латышский добровольческий легион СС), and Latvian (lv:Latviešu leģions). The current naming of the article stems from a merging operation on 12 May 2007, when this title was mistakenly given precedence over the more correct singular version. Zalktis 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Requested move (was: Rename)

  1. A user who is not a native speaker of English mistakenly created a page entitled Latvian Legions in parallel to the existing page Latvian Legion. To the uninitiated, this present title suggests a plural form in English, i.e. that there were multiple Legions. It is my suspicion, however, that this usage derives from the fact that "leģions" (legion) has a final 's' (masculine nominative singular) in Latvian. (Cf. lv:Latviešu leģions)
  2. Xil noted the existence of parallel articles, and correctly suggested that this one be merged into Latvian Legion (see above).
  3. When Alex Bakharev performed the merge, however, the correct version, Latvian Legion, was mistakenly merged into this article instead.
  4. As long as the current (factually inaccurate and misleading) article name persists, other users (e.g. Petri Krohn, Philaweb) will continue to unwittingly undo edits that try to remove the usage of the plural.

— Zalktis 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from Latvian Legions to Latvian Legion as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd division

In some sources there is information about ephemerical third Latvian division even sometimes with number 36 (but it's number of Dirlewanger division).--Greutungen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

A user on Latvian Wikipedia just rised a question if introduction on Latvian Wikipedia (For those who speak Latvian - Latvijas teritoriju okupējušā Trešā reiha bruņoto struktūru - ieroču SS un policijas - sastāvā esošo latviešu militāro formējumu kopums Otrā pasaules kara laikā) is correct compared to introduction on English and Russian Wikipedias (apperently these ar simmilar, the English one is - The Latvian Legion was a Waffen-SS unit consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians). This makes me ask if English Wikipedia is correct - the title as noted before should be singular, but dose this mean that the Legion was a single unit ? ~~Xil * 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the LL was actually a bringing-together of new and pre-existing Latvian Waffen-SS and police (Schutzmannschaften) units under one organisational structure, it would be more accurate and precise to say: The Latvian Legion was a formation of the Waffen-SS consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians. Cf Formation (military). If this change is introduced, however, it may be necessary to change the section heading "Formation" to "Founding", "Creation" or suchlike, in order to avoid some confusion. —Zalktis (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)