PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Presidents?

Umm... other Baltic countries list presidents. Why is this a list of so-called "leaders" including the U.S.S.R.? I'm sorry, but this needs to become a List of Presidents. I'll wait a bit for the flumoxing to settle before I correct. If someone wants to make an ersatz leaders of Latvia template they are free to use this, but this is not a list of presidents as it stands. And no, it doesn't need to be renamed to something else, it just needs fixing. —PētersV (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular opinion on this, just wanted to ask you to create seperate template for USSR part if/when you decide to act ~~Xil...sist! 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I would agree there should be a template of First Secretaries of the S.S.R., they are what they are. —PētersV (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Template:Latvian SSR First Secretaries created and Presidents template is reserved for presidents. As always, please do not revert without prior discussion. I updated the template references for the two First Secretaries for whom there are articles. —PētersV (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Acting" presidents

If we're going to have acting presidents, then the list needs to be a lot longer. For example, Kalniņš alone was acting president on three occasions during the first period of independence (prior to occupation).
  On the other hand, if we're not going to have acting presidents, then Kalniņš, Rancāns, and Gorbunovs have to go. BTW, interesting talk by Gorbunovs commemorating Rancāns here, in Latvian. Of course, it's interesting that Gorbunovs describes individuals who happen to be in the same position as himself as "acting president."
  As I understand it, "acting" (directly post-Ulmanis) was a declaration of the Latvian Central Committee. The Nazis arrested Kalniņš, upon which Tepfers succeeded him (so wouldn't he be the next "acting" president?). Looks to be a decent article on the LCP in LV WP here.
  The whole acting thing just seems a bit misplaced and misdirected, especially as a formal government in exile (or under occupation) was never organized or declared. —PētersV (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask about that too (changed my mind, but if someone else also mentions it...) - any speaker of parliament can be acting president (See 52), also these "exile" presidents weren't presidents in given period of time(1918-1940), were they ?--~~Xil...sist! 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalniņš definitely wasn't "exile", he was "acting" by declaration of the LCP during the Nazi occupation. He was apparently arrested--but Rancāns wasn't next in line at that point. So why then this gap in "acting"? It's all quite fascinating, but it has little to do with the presidency--the LCP was not formal in attempting to continue the government and Latvian sovereign authority had been specifically (and wholly) vested in Zariņš in London. In different circumstances the LCP might have counted for some sort of continuity, but in the end...

Perhaps less originality and we simply list the presidents per the Latvian government? There's a concept! Wait, I can hear it now, "There's no rule that Wikipedia needs to agree with a government about who its presidents were!" —PētersV (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Set the list to who Latvia says its presidents were. I left the three extra commented for now, I thought I'd let the template sit for a couple of days. Similarly, will comment out template on Gorbunovs' page. —PētersV (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the design

Maybe we should have it like this:

there is no actual need to have two groups anymore, the dates are still incorrect ( Čakste was elected in 1922 not '18, same with Ulmanis)--~~Xil...sist! 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity carries the day. And since someone else brought it up, I was thinking the dates needed to actually reflect the terms (which course don't reflect the republic dates). So, no dates solves all problems. I completely concur. —PētersV (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have it sit for a couple of days, then update. I also left some comments on the Template talk:Estonia Presidents page. —PētersV (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990/91-93?

I created this template, and I don't have a problem with the recent changes. However, a small point: part 2 says "1991-" but Ulmanis took office in 1993. If this is a problem, I suggest three possible fixes:

Change it to "1993-".

Change the title to "Heads of state of Latvia" and include Ulmanis.

Put a footnote explaining that between 1990 (or '91) and 1993, Latvia's head of state was Gorbunovs. Biruitorul (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking just to remove the years per the "simplicity" model above.

Because of how the Latvian political system works, there were acting heads of state between just about all the Latvian presidents. However, Gorbunovs is a special case and I would not have any issue with making a suitable note in the template, although that does make it a bit less simple. :-) PētersV (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could just close this can of worms by puting up the simple version. Otherwise we have to explain who was the head of the state in periods when there was no president, Gorbunovs is easy, but does anyone remember who was the leader before first president and first Saeima, before there even was the constitution - Čakste or Ulmanis ? They both are already listed should we list one of them twice, or make a note ? If it was Ulmanis as Prime minister why don't we list all prime ministers here ? And all speakers of Saeima who have been acting president could be listed as well, which by latvian law probably means all speakers of Saeima as they carry out presidents duties even if the president is on foreign trip--~~Xil...sist! 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xil raises a good point: who was head of state until Čakste formally took office in 1922? But, to focus on the early '90s issue: we are of course here to record, not create reality, but I would press for Gorbunovs' inclusion in a footnote because:

He was there for a couple of years, not a matter of days.

He wasn't acting for anyone. When the Saeima president takes over these days, the rules are clear: he's there on a temporary basis and gives back power to the president when he comes back home. (Article 52 of the Latvian Constitution) Gorbunovs, on the other hand, exercised all the normal functions of the head of state for quite some time, and the international press even referred to him as "President" (example). He also received ambassadors, a standard function for a head of state: as the NYT recorded on Aug. 28, 1991: "Today Riga also acquired the first visible token of recognition of its 51 years of striving to regain international standing as the capital of an independent country. Otto Borch presented his credentials as Denmark's Ambassador to President Anatolijs Gorbunovs."

He actually did something, unlike Saeima presidents who act as president (yes, quite subjective, but still).

It was a unique situation. Saeima presidents will probably keep the Latvian presidential chair warm for a few days at a time until rising sea levels wipe it off the map (this time for good), but never again will Latvia have to emerge from Moscow's rule.

So, as a preliminary proposal, let me suggest this text as a footnote: "Between 1991 and 1993, Latvia's interim head of state was Anatolijs Gorbunovs". I welcome further improvement. Biruitorul (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here The New York Times states "Anatolijs Gorbunovs, [..] was re-elected this week as chairman, or president, of the Latvian Parliament" which clearly indicates that "president" in this case means president of parliament not of the country, reference to the constitution in case of Gorbunovs is not valid as the constitution, except for articles 1,2,3 and 6, was suspended at the time, he acted upon Soviet law by which his status probably wasn't that unique (assuming that the chairman of the Supreme Soviet was officialy the head of the state, although de facto leader was the leader of communist party, which of course changed when several parties were elected in the parliament) ~~Xil...sist! 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is from May 5, 1990, well before anyone recognised Latvia as de facto independent. For the (let's say) September 6, 1991 to July 7, 1993 period, he was referred to simply (and a bit erroneously) as President in the Times. More importantly, he was in fact head of state. There was a state, no? Or was Latvia in anarchy for 22 months? My point is that gaps of a few days need not be reflected in the template (especially as there still is a President in those periods, albeit abroad), but for 22+ months, Latvia was independent, a full member of the international community, yet had no President, but she did have a head of state. His name was Gorbunovs, and somehow that ought to be reflected in the template. Biruitorul (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but constitution was still suspended and the constitutional law adopted upon de facto restoration of independence did not specify what he is ought to do nor changed his status he most likely continued to act as before. The idea behind the change was that this template should list only iduviduals who were presidents and are recognised as such by government and most people in Latvia, Gorbunovs has never been among them ~~Xil...sist! 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I don't propose putting him on the same line as Ulmanis, Vike-Freiberga and Zatlers, because he wasn't President. However, in the interests of completeness and accuracy, a footnote explaining who was Latvia's head of state from 1991 to 1993 would, I believe, be appropriate. Biruitorul (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I proposed to remove years alltogether, so to not make things complicated and misleading ~~Xil...sist! 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but my friend, history is complicated, which is why our template shouldn't give the impression G. Ulmanis took office right after his great-uncle! But let's see if Pēters has anything more to add on the subject. Biruitorul (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(out-dented) Still recovering from a cold so the brain is a bit clogged... perhaps the Ulmanis following Ulmanis issue is already taken care of in the anticipated Gorbunovs as president of parliament note? I do firmly believe the list of Presidents should be the list of Presidents per the government of Latvia, otherwise things can get out of hand--I've learned that precision and accuracy are often mutually exclusive.

For Latvians, at least, it was of immense significance that Ulmanis followed Ulmanis. Talk about your symbols of continuity--this was continuity in the flesh. Damn stubborn Latvians making a point. :-) PētersV (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acctuly we were disscusing if we couldn't live without the note (because then we must make a note about other "heads" as well). Given that fifty years is rather long period of time, maybe we could note that, not Gorbunovs here, like this, for example:

--~~Xil...sist! 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say it irks me to see the LSSR between the "Ulmanis"es (that would be construed as personal POV), so I won't. Rather, if we insert something of that form, it makes the LSSR out to be an official Latvian entity; it should be "interrupted by Soviet annexation (1940-1991)" (and have that link to the now renamed Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic). I believe this would be sufficiently NPOV and avoid confusing readers implying there was something "Latvian" in power during the Soviet era.

—PētersV (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—PētersV (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I've said my piece, and if you still object to the footnote, I do not intend to press the matter further. (There's also the issue of 1918-22...) It's your country and you're best suited to interpreting her history, so with that said, I bow out of this rather interesting (and quite civil) discussion. Biruitorul (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my oppinion Soviet occupation or annexation or LSSR is (about) the same thing, also article on LSSR explains everything, calling it LSSR would save as from potential troubles ~~Xil...sist! 07:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm fine with interrupted by LSSR. —PētersV (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can we put the simple version up ? ~~Xil...sist! 15:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good. :-) PētersV (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President-elect

Just to make the record straight – the concept of president-elect does not exist in Latvia, ergo, the upcoming president is only president when sworn in. Do not blindly transfer American traditions to other nations where heads of state also happen to be entitled presidents. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kārlis Ulmanis

I put K. Ulmanis in italics since the Latvian version of the biographies of past presidents on the website of the Chancery of the President describes him as interim President (Latvian: Prezidenta vietas izpildītājs, literally "the exectutive of the office of President"). They also list Rancāns and Kalniņš as post-WW2 interim presidents, but I don't wanna be the judge on this at the moment. Ivario (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]