Talk:Riga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Riga article.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.
To-do list for Riga: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • The article needs more references
  • Merge and convert to prose Cityscape and Neighborhoods
  • Ensure that all facts are in approporiate sections (e.g. facts about air traffic might do better in Infrastructure not Economy)

Contents

[edit] Transportations

Could some one tell me about the transports in Riga...is there a metro, is it easy to use the transports, prices, etc. Does anyone know how far is Riga from Ventspils? Tnx


Nope, there is no metro currently in Riga, but there is a wide network of city trams, buses and other public transportations. Tickets in most public transports cost 0.30Ls (30 santims, $0.20-0.23). Well, I guess, that useage of transports isn't much more complicated than in other countires/cities :) And the distance between Riga and Ventspils is 159km, but the highway between them is ~200km long.

--The thruth is in here 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population

The article doesn't state how many people live in Riga. Any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.134.30.228 (talk • contribs) 10:17, December 16, 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, it would be interesting to know why Riga's population is decreasing again in recent times. Emigration? Death rate higher than birth rate? Something else?

Following quote is not neutral in perspective: "...any non-Latvians whose families arrived after the 1940 annexation were stripped of their citizenship.".
How can "non-Latvians" be stripped of a citizenship they never held?
All citizens of the Latvian SSR had citizenship of the Soviet Union until the new Latvian independence. All (even "non-Latvians") who lived in Latvia until the 1940 Soviet annexation and their descendants automatically became Latvian citizens after the new Latvian independence. All (even emigree Latvians) who did not live in Latvia until the 1940 Soviet annexation and their descendants kept their old citizenship - which, for the majority was citizenship of the Soviet Union, which at the time of the new Latvian citizenship legislation (1992) was a non-existing state. The use of "non-Latvians" is vague and really quite undefined. Another aspect to this is the fact, that ethnic Latvians who lived outside Latvia but within the former Soviet Union at the time of new Latvian independence were not given citizenship automatically (about 40.000 people). Philaweb 11:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I might add that the Latvian legislation on citizenship has been amended several times since 1992, the above written is based on the original 1992 legislation. Philaweb 12:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lido

Does anyone have a picture of Lido (esepcially around christmas time)? That would definately be a good picture to include. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Riga" or "Rīga"

I cannot even see the new name of the article (Rīga) on my PC with the fonts installed with MS Windows. This is the English language Wikipedia. How far can we go in the these demands for ethnic spelling?

Moving the article back to Riga -- Petri Krohn 22:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate reason for renaming an article. (How about a situation where I'm a public servant, you come to get a new passport and you find out that I have printed the new passport with your name spelled completely differently just because I couldn't read it in the first place. Would you feel that the change was justified?)
However, I don't mind in this particular case, because in the English language the spelling Riga is used more often and it is the standard spelling for this city. --Jūzeris | Talk 20:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Demographics

"During these many centuries [...] the Baltic Germans in Riga [...] remained steadfast in their positions, and in 1900 Riga's population of 282,943 was composed approximately of 50% Baltic Germans, 25% Latvians, and 25% Russians." Source? According to Straubergs' history (Rīgas vēsture) and other reference works, the Germans made up 42,9% of the population of the city in 1867, 39,4% in 1881, 23,8% in 1897... and only 13,3% in 1913. I cannot find figures for 1900, but "approximately 50%" is most definitely wrong. The percentages from the 1897 census were 45% Latvian, 23,8% German, 16,1% Russian, 6% Jewish, 4,8% Polish, 2,3% Lithuanian, 1,3% Estonian, 0,7% other -- total population 282 230. --Pēteris Cedriņš 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Occupation"

Soviet military presence cannot be called an "occupation" in terms of international law as there has not been war between the USSR and Latvia. DamianOFF 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with extensively on the Talk:Lithuania page, where it was suggested this issue be entered into the Village Pump —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] German Repatriation

Prior version made it appear Latvia threw Germans out when it was Hitler who issued the call home (knowing that with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact it was only a matter of time until Latvia fell to the Soviet "sphere." —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links?

I see "non-encyclopedic" links were removed. Why? Certainly if someone is looking for information on Riga, Riga Municipality portal would be more than appropriate to list. If "encyclopedic" were applied across the board, 90% of the links in Wikipedia would disappear. Any good reason (before I revert)? —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, was looking thtough history, some already appear to have returned! —Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pēters. I didn't remove the Riga municipality link, I changed it. Since this is the English language wikipedia our policy is to favour English language links, and to not link to non-English language links in the external links section (except in exceptional circumstances). So it seemed more appropriate to link directly to the English language home page instead of making user click through to it. I did the same with Virtual tour of riga and the University sites. The sites I removed were either non-encyclopedic, like holiday booking sites, or the site had shut down, or there was no English language content. If you think I removed a link that adds useful encyclopedic value to the article please put it back. I was just trying to cleanup what looked like a neglected list. --Siobhan Hansa 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Siobhan. Many thanks! Since Latvian isn't a foreign language to me that distinction flies by me sometimes. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People who live in Riga. Who they are?

How to call them ? In Russian language it is рижане, in Latvian Ridzenieki, in German - Rigaer. But how to say in english correctly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.148.88.2 (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

It's Rigan as far as I know but I could be wrong. Valenciano 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question out of pure quriosity

I don't know the background, nor the precise demographics of Latvia...but why is the Estonian name of the city listed in the opening paragraph? Isn't Latvian and (de facto) Russian the two languages of the country? MoRsE 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The only explanaton that comes to mind is the fact that Riga is spelled the same way in all languages, except for Estonian and Lithuanian (and perhaps Polish). Perhaps the Lithuanian, Polish version should be added as well? Philaweb 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In Finnish it is Riika. r.Soms

[edit] External links

It would be nice if we could do some evaluation of the external links. Some of them belong in other articles, some of them are links to personal photo galleries from some trip to Riga. It would be nice to find some criterias for what sort of links that would fit to this section, preventing linkfarming. Philaweb T-C 10:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that any article should have only relevant, interesting links, that help reader to learn further details, as for pictures - if there is external picture galery it should contain unique, informative images that are not available on wikipedia or commons. Just remove other links or list them here, if you think that they could be useful elsewhere -- Xil/talk 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable people

I wish to rid the article of this section: there is no criteria for inclusion - some of these people have just been born in Riga, but have lived most of their lives elsewhere, others are only mariginaly notable (some even don't have articles and we can't include half of Latvian national ice hockey team). So if no one minds I will just remove this section (NB: I probably will have time to deal with this article during the lenghtly holidays /1-5 May or so/) ~~Xil * 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Reformation

I would like to ask for some refference prooveing this: in 1581, Riga came under the influence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Attempts to reinstitute Roman Catholicism in Riga and southern Livonia failed as in 1621.
25 september 1621 Riga was actually captured by Gustav Adolf and Sweden at that time for sure wasn`t catholic, Duchy of Livonia was actually Pl-Lt Condominium, it had its own Marszałek, Hetman and had some sort of autonomy. However Sigismund III Vasa was verry conservative, it was just impossible for him to force anyone without Sejm, plenty of highest offices were held by protestants or orthodoxes, in Lithuania almost all. Not to mention Warsaw Confederation of religious peace 1573.
P.S. Picture of Rigas skyline covers some part of text. Mikołajski (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what the text says - Counter-Reformation failed because Riga was captured by Sweden, there is a comma which probably shouldn't be there, maybe it confused you. IMHO it looks that in the history section history of Riga is somtimes confused with history of Latvia (as far as I remember Catholics failed miserably in attemts to restore their faith in Riga). The picture looks fine to me ~~Xil * 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In text is written: "then in 1581, Riga came under the influence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth..." then goes sentence quoted above. So it says that in both 1581 and 1621 was some attempt to force Riga citizens to catholicism, i`m only askeing who wanted to do it and which source reports it. I just doubt if it was possible, even if at that time started counter-reformation in Commonwealth, its most opressive element was propaganda supported by ultra-catholic (and Swedish btw) King with his printing houses, simply nothing more was possible according to law, not any burning piles etc, nothing like this never happend (well once and not in Riga, but then Papal inquisitor was beaten by the crowd and fled from country). Besides as i said Duchy of Livonia (which Riga was part since 1581) was joint-dominium of both Polish Crown and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Courland, which is present south Latvia, was vassal Duchy under Kettlers family, after secularisation of Livonian Order, and it was by all means acceptable that its ruler and elites were protestant, it was separate state after all. If you say that you remember such thing, please put a source in which you red about it. I was talking that picture covers part of text, not that it looks bad (looks more than fine) and also picture of postcard from 1900 cover one word. Speaking about history, Peace of Riga can be added to this section, especially if it was also speaking about independence of Baltic States. Cheers Mikołajski (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It was in history textbook - I looked trough it and couldn't find anything on catholicism other than banishing clerics and jesuits from Riga. I removed that piece of text hope it looks ok now ~~Xil * 11:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i hope it`s right according to history, that i don`t know if it did happend, doesn`t mean that it didn`t. Sorry for bothering you with this history section, but what exactly Riga have in common with Thirty years war? Mikołajski (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but this isn't the only place where these are mentioned together, maybe Sweden gained some advantage in the war by taking Riga or something ~~Xil * 16:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don`t know it either. Well, for sure anyone who would capture Riga will get richer, so indirectly yes, Sweden gained advantage. If it was something more, it should be somehow mentioned and explained in this article. But it wasn`t part of that war by any mean. I think it`s just not a part of Rigas history, in opposite to Peace of Riga 1921. Greets.Mikołajski (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The history section is too long already, it has been copied to seperate article, so if you think something needs longer explanation, maybe just delete it and leave note about it at Talk:History of Riga (be bold - this article has been developing on its own, there is no main contributor here who would know what's going on, the part of history section we are discussing was written in begining of 2005 by someone who seems to have left Wikipedia) ~~Xil * 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don`t want to mess in your city/country related articles without a word of explanation. This or other way in both stands this sentence, rather related to Swedish history than Rigas. Maybe it`s only my POV, but i supose that it was added for some religious purpose, that`s why it was makeing some sense with suposed counter-reformative PLC attempts, but the same now as before it`s just off-topic. It`s not that i need some explanation, but this sentence needs, otherwise it`s like i said, off-top. Mikołajski (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that no-one will mind if you delete it (in my opinion the history section should be even shorter) not that you need someone to explain you something, if you leave a note explainig why you've altered the text it will be more than enough. This period of history really isn't my cup of tea - I can check facts elsewhere, but I don't realy know and I don't want to mess something up ~~Xil * 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neighborhoods

Looking at it, the list was getting a bit long. A split might offer an opportunity to add more than cursory detail. —PētersV (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)