ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Sami people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Sami people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sami people article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Template:Sweden-article-2

Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Sweden The article on Sami people is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Sami people as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

/Archive 1 (2002-2005 threads)

Contents

[edit] Ethnic relatives?

As far as I know the sami aren't related to the finnic peoples more than by the language. Wich was presumably forced upon them. So why are the finnic peoples listed as their ethnic relatives? --DerMeister 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Finns are related to them linguistically, not ethnically. The article should mention that the Sami must have spoken a non-Finnic language until they came into contact with the ancestors of the Finns and adopted their language. That non-Finnic language is long extinct, and has left no trace at all so we know absolutely nothing about it. It is probably not related to any other known language. Edrigu 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted that Finns are genetically Germanic people that switched their earlier Indo-European (?) language to a Finno-Ugric one. Both Finns and Sami people have presumably adopted their language from a third group that is no longer recognizable; or perhaps Finns took their language from the Sami people who had earlier taken it from some other group. Populations were so small in the north thousands of years ago that relatively few new-comers could bring fundamental changes on the original people's culture and language. --Drieakko 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a gross oversimplification at best. Finns have clear genetic differences to germanic speaking peoples, but obviously a large amount of germanic and baltic people have contributed the finnish gene-pool. The likely scenario is one of peaceful coexistence leading to assimmilation of the minority, which if it happens more than once can even account for a majority import of genetics.--AkselGerner (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article, please note that there is no evidence of a single pre-Finno-Ugric language spoken by the Sami people. Sami people could quite as well have spoken several independent languages that had only few hundreds speakers each. Linguistic incoherence could have accelerated the adoption of a Finno-Ugric language that came with new cultural elements and presumably also with some new people. --Drieakko 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, if we put our collective effort in to it I'm sure we can make this clear to the people reading it. I added this:

As to when and were the sami actually came from, nobody knows. Linguistically they are finnic but ethnically and culturally they are unique. The sami almost surely had an own language that died out in favour for an early version of finnish when the finns came to the north. It is important to know that the north was so sparsely poppulated that the immigration of very few people would surely have an enormous effect on all people. --DerMeister 10:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted this, because the passage is poorly structured and contains factual errors. First, stating that nobody knows where the Sami came from is cliche, and it entails the assumption that ethnic groups have usually just "come" from somewhere. This is generally untrue; ethnogenesis is a much more complex process. Second, the statement that the Sami are linguistically Finnic is false, and the claim that the Sami languages derive from an "early version of finnish" is just bizarre. "Finnic" means the same as "Baltic Finnic", and the Sami languages are not Finnic, let alone that they would derive from Finnish. --AAikio 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The language section is incomplete without mentioning the fact that the Sami at one point spoke a non-Finno-Urgic language and adopted their current language from the ancestors of the Finns. I'm open to any suggestions on the best way to phrase this. Edrigu 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
To state that "the Sami at one point spoke a non-Finno-Urgic language and adopted their current language from the ancestors of the Finns" is such an oversimpflication that it is essentially incorrect. First, all populations are genetically mixed to some degree, they are not unchanging monoliths so that we could say that population A acquired its language form the ancestors of population B, or the like. I don't dispute the idea that there has been widespread language shift in the Saami area, but we can't speak of the Saami population as a delimited group that first spoke one language and then borrwed another from Finns or their ancestors. I could try to write something more exact on ethnolinguistic history for this article in the future, and to include references as well.--AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Most likely the Sami were not techically "Sami" before they assimilated into the Sami-finnic language group. The entnonym given to them is of baltic origin and the same etnonym was in fact given to the finnish tribes Hämäläiset (s>h) (also referred to at times as Tavastians), the same word is argued by some to have later formed the basis for the word Suomi, the finnish endonym. So the etnonym is likely to have been adopted after the adoption of language. They were of course a people (or perhaps more than one people in the case they had at that time more than one language), but they had a different name for themselves, and that is hardly of small importance in terms of ethnic identity. A more correct way to formulate the events is that "ancestors of the Sami, living indigenously in and around present day Sapmi and speaking one or more unidentified languages, adopted their language from peoples speaking a language from which descends both the samic languages and the baltic-finnic languages". That's not very good writing, but at least it corresponds with the accepted facts, and points out the fact that the genetic background is not the same as the linguistic background. --AkselGerner (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, where do they come from? Genetically they have no "neighbours". Sami languages sound ALOT like finnish. You seem to be very well aware of this, please do enlighten us. I'm writing an essay about the sami at the moment and have more or less got stuck. Most of the stuff that relates to the language and history are filled with words such as "probably", "assume" and "belived to..". The idea that sami would derive from an earlier version of finnish (or vice versa?) is not my idea, I read it from a book that stated that it COULD be like that. I'll chek if I can find the book in the librarry next time I'm there (in a year or so :P).--DerMeister 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A correct way to say this would be that the Saami are a genetic outlier among the European populations. This means that they have a relatively isolated genetic history, but not completely isolated. Therefore we have no reason to speak of whole populations borrowing their language, or something similar.
As for Saami languages deriving from Finnish, this is something that is nowadays rejected by everyone in the field of comparative Uralic linguistics, regardless of whether such claims are made in some reference or not. It is an idea so bizarrely incorrect that it could be compared to saying that English derives from an early form of French. Finnish and the other (Baltic) Finnic languages derive from Proto-Finnic and the Saami languages derive from Proto-Saami. Proto-Finnic and Proto-Saami, in turn, derive from Proto-Uralic, possibly via an intermediate proto-language called Proto-Finni-Saami (this last detail is disputed, though). --AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just plain not true AAikio. The consensus in Uralic studies is that Sami languages descend directly from sami-finnic; from which also the baltic-finnic languages directly descend. Proto-Uralic isn't even close. The ones dabbling in dating the divergences along language family trees (I don't feel this to be a clever thing to do, but still for clarity I mention it) posit a 3000-4000 year distance between proto-Uralic and Sami-Finnic. Sami languages have undergone some quite impressive sound changes, but they are not enough to mask the strong correlation between finnic and samic, it is a far closer relation than finnic and finno-permic.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't come from anywhere, they've always been there (at least as long as anyone knows), it is the Finnish speakers who come from somewhere else. I believe I am to blame for calling the Sami language a "finnic" language, as I was under the impression that finnic meant the same thing as the the Finno half of Finno-Ugric, and it does not. In any case, the modern Sami languages all derive from the same language that Finnish derives from. But the important point I'm trying to get across is that they did not always speak a Uralic language, they spoke some unattested extinct language, or perhaps several. Edrigu 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Finnic" does not mean "Finno-Ugric minus Ugric"; it means the same as "Baltic Finnic". However, the erroneous usage of this term is regrettably widespread in references that were not written by Uralic specialists.--AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think all peoples in the world at one point spoke a language that they do not speak anymore. So that kind of remark about Sami people is just pointless. --Drieakko 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, if a particular ethnic group's ancestors spoke a different language, they don't necessarily have any connections to those ancestors (except genetically) and no one would call them the same ethnic group. But the Sami are the same ethnically now as they were before they adopted their Uralic language. I know I'm not explaining this very well but I hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say. We know when the Uralic speakers moved into that region and came into contact with the Sami (and it was relatively recently) so we can say with some certainty whenabouts they began to speak a Uralic language. Edrigu 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A brief comment on this as well: why do you think " the Sami are the same ethnically now as they were before they adopted their Uralic language"? This strikes me as pure speculation, even though I'm not even exactly sure what you mean by this. I don't dispute the idea that there was a relatively recent language shift, just the opposite (in fact, I've myself recently argued for this view in some detail), but I don't see how the Sami could have remained ethnically "the same" through a language shift. We don't know anything about the ethnicity of the pre-Sami groups in Lapland, and I can't see how there could have been an ethnic continuity through a language shift. --AAikio 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting talkback. What is "relatively recent" in this context? --Drieakko 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the inexact wording; in the Iron Age was what I meant. More exact dating is hard, but a realistic time frame is something between the beginning of the Iron Age and A.D. 500. It seems highly unlikely that Saami would have been spoken in Lapland before the Iron Age. I can't go here into the exact linguistic arguments that show this, because that would be too long to explain here. But in case anyone's interested in this, the arguments supporting this can be found in this reference: Ante Aikio (2004), An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. (In: Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63: 5-34.)--AAikio 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hearing this for the first time, it sounds quite radical. Since the Germanic presence in Scandinavia was very strong in the Iron Age and if the then population on the Sami area was prone to have a language change, it sounds strange that they would have gone for a Finno-Ugric language and not for a Germanic one that was used by a far more dominant group of people in their immediate vicinity. --Drieakko 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Radical, perhaps, but as far as I can see, the evidence is pretty clear: there's a lot of linguistic evidence (from vocabulary and place-names) suggesting that a language shift from unknown languages to Saami took place in Lapland in the early Iron Age. On the other hand, there is no evidence that would suggest an earlier presence of the Saami language in this area, rather to the contrary - e.g. the existence of pre-Finnic and Proto-Baltic loans in Saami suggest that Saami was originally spoken much further south. This idea seems to have been accepted by some archaeologists working on Saami ethnogenesis as well, notably Christian Carpelan (see The Saami: a Cultural Encyclopedia s.v. origins). I don't see the Germanic issue as a problem to this. If we're speaking of southern Scandinavia, then the Germanic/Nordic influence was strong, but as far as northern Lapland and the Kola peninsula are concerned, there's nothing that would suggest any extensive Nordic settlement before the Viking Age.--AAikio 16:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What would have motivated such a remarkable shift in the Iron Age? Is it necessary that the language spoken in the Sami area before the Iron Age was a non-Finno-Ugric one? Would a more suitable theory be that the Finno-Ugric languages just continuosly adopted new elements from each other, mainly roaming from south to north along with other cultural influences. This regular update would have continued up until the time when proto-Finnic language was adopted by small groups of Germanic people living from farming on the coasts: having a too different background and culture, they eventually split from the hunter-gatherer proto-Samic people living more north. --Drieakko 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As to why the shift took place, I can't say. The linguistic data indicates that such a shift happened, but at present the reasons of the process are entirely unclear. And in general I'm somewhat skeptical as to what degree we can essentially reconstruct prehistoric sociolinguistic processes; there's no clear source of evidence which would allow this to be done. In general, however, such a language shift is not very remarkable, given that language shifts are known to be common throughout history (also in hunter-gatherer societies).
We can't of course prove that the language (or rather, languages) spoken in Lapland before Saami was not Uralic. But at least there seems to be no evidence supporting this idea, and at least some details speak against it: e.g., judging from substrate place-names, the pre-Saami language in Lapland had initial consonant clusters like sk-, which are not typical to Uralic. As to the idea of waves of influence from the south which would have "updated" the language, I can't see evidence for this. If this was the case, it would have resulted in either mere borrowing and dialect mixture (which could be detected by the comparative method), or, if the "update" was complete, then it would essentially mean the same as language shift (from one Finno-Ugric language to another, i.e. Proto-Saami).
There's also one general condition which ought to be taken into account here, which clearly supports the idea of language shift. Finland, Karelia and Lapland together form an immense area, and it would be unrealistic to assume that it was inhabited by only one ethnolinguistic group (Proto-Saami) for any lengthy period of time, without linguistic divergence as a result. The ethnographic record of the world shows that linguistic diversity is highest among hunter-gatherers. This can be seen in the Saami area as well, where we have 10 distinct languages each of which traditionally occupied only a small region. But going back in time to the early Iron Age, we arrive at a single ancestral language, Proto-Saami. One language can only have originally developed in one speech community, and hence there's every reason to assume that Proto-Saami also was originally spoken in a rather limited area and only secondary spread to cover this vast territory. The divergence of the proto-language into several local Saami languages can then be neatly explained as a direct result of the expansion, which made it impossible to maintain a communication network over the entire area. But stretching the Saami presence in Lapland farther back to the Bronze Age, we would lose the correlation between spread and divergence. Instead, one would have to assume that Proto-Saami first developed uniformly in this huge area in the Bronze Age, but then - for unclear reasons - split into 10+ distinct languages in the Iron Age without any change in the geographic distribution; such a scenario would not seem plausible. --AAikio 08:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Thinking this again, it does not sound as implausible as I first thought it was. There is also a point of time in archaeology that gives some support for this hypothesis, although we drift here to speculation. At the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age, around 500 BCE, climate became clearly colder in the north. As a result from that, coastal population in Finland living from cattle breeding and small-scale farming was in serious trouble, forced to resort to earlier more nomadic ways. Population on the coast was presumably too numerous to support everyone any more, and many people moved in a relatively short period of time to the wilderness to live from hunting and gathering. These people, presumably speaking a Finno-Ugric language, would then have spread to waste areas populated by Sami ancestors, disrupting their lives so that they adopted the language spoken by the newcomers. So, as an indirect result from the economical collapse in the south, a linguistic change in the north may have taken place; but again, this is speculation. --Drieakko 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Two small points to consider: There is archeological evidence of close contact between indigenous population in Finland (thought to be Sami) and the nativized form of the war-axe-culture (thought to have been the beginning of finnish people) in the bronze age. Second, it is a known historical fact (documented also by chroniclers) that Sami people lived throughout the length of Finland, all the way down to the south coast. The regression to present Sapmi occurred only from 1000AD-1700AD, and was accompanied with some assimilation of Sami into Finnish population, for example the Finnish family name "Lappalainen" can be traced to have originally belonged only to assimilated Sami.
Finno-Ugric language spread to Northern Europe presumably 5000-6000 years ago. Finnic and Sami languages separated some 3000-3500 years ago. Ethnically "Sami" groups are not recognizable from archaeological findings of that era. People inhabiting the present-day Sami region back then and Sami people today most likely have nothing else in common except their genetics. --Drieakko 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I asked on your talk page, do you have sources for that? Most scholars think Proto-Uralic was still undivided 5-6000 years ago, or at least that fenno-ugric was still united then.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely as Finnish and Sami are way too close to have separated so far ago. Language does _NOT_ equal ethnicity people! --85.226.83.84 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sami speaking people ethnically related to (Baltic-)Finnic speaking peoples?

If this assumption is based on linguistic relatedness, one should bear in mind that comparative linguistics postulate that the Sami languages and the Baltic-Finnic languages separated during the 2nd millennium BC. This time span would be more or less equivalent with the postulated chronology for the separation of e.g. Germanic, Celtic and Slavic linguistic groups in the Indo-European language sphere. Should we now state that e.g. Irish people be ethnically related to Russians? Clarifer 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but Irish and Russiand might be closer related than Finns and Sami. 惑乱 分からん 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Niskanen 2002 and Cavelli-Sforza 1994's genetic distance calculations most of the Finnic-Ugric populations are closer related to the Irish and the northern Europeans than the Saami.

[edit] The indigenous people of Scandinavia?

Sure, even if most of them are living like modern scandinavians, some of them are living in a more traditional way. But were they really the first people to settle down in Norway or Sweden? At least in Norway that is a big question as it might as well could be that it is the ethnic Norwegians that arrived Norway first. If indigenous people means first, then Norwegians should be defined as this too. But for some reason western people is never considered as indigenous people. Maori people are seen as the indigenous people of New Zealand and the inuits as the indigenous people of Greenland, but the Icelanders are not considered as this even if they have lived on their island at least as long as the maoris and inuits have lived on theirs. It all seems like it is considered impossible to be defined as indigenous people if you are white, and why is that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipporoo (talk • contribs) 24 February 2006

The Sami were probably not the first group to inhabit their ancestral lands of Northern Scandinavia, other peoples were there long before. However, these peoples are all gone, and the Sami are undoubtedly the oldest group present in large parts of Northern Scandinavia, notably all of Finnmark and Troms, the Finnish province of Lapin Lääni, the inland of Nortern Sweden down to Jämtland and long stretches of the Norwegian provinces of Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag and Sør-Trøndelag. One talks of indigenous peoples only if there is another dominant group that has come in later and taken over most of the land, otherwise the discussion is of no interest. Like whether the Icelandic are the indigenous people of Iceland or not. They have their island all to themselves....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.84.133 (talk) 20 March 2006
  • Is there any connection between the Sama and the Irish, Welsh, Scottish or Basque people?.These people have been proven to be untouched largely by the 20% of neolithic groups from the middle east that "invaded" Europe. Here are some links > [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] . My opinion, which isn't tworth much since I am no geneticist but i have taken Anthro 101 and the concept of evolution is that all of these people have been genetically isolated (from the neolithic migrations that contribute 20% of the gene pool of Europe) would be one of adaptation to the harsh environment. Of oourse there are always the oddball theories that people throw a wrench into the problem by exploring retarded alternatives...for instance the much debated origin of the basque in Northern Spain which have been found to be genetically similar to the that of the IRish, they use this information and assume that "OH! the basques must have migrated to Ireland and Wales and just stopped moving after that!" When in reality (according to what I have read) these are just the remnants of the original paleolithic population of Europe which 80% of modern Europeans trace their lineage back to. These peoples gene pools have been largely untainted for centuries due to their isolation. I saw the same type of stuff on the irish people discussion, lol.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird Whodi (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006
Did you really mean to say "untainted"? An unfortunate choice of words when talking about genetic inheritances.--AkselGerner (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Per 80.212.84.133 above, being the absolute first people to inhabit a region is not a prerequisite to claim or identity as an indigenous people - please review the content of that article for confirmation. That the Sami have claimed (and have acheived some recognition) as an indigenous people is confirmed by many observations and submissions made to international bodies such as the UN's WGIP, and is reflected in aspects of their legal status in the Scandanavian countries in which they reside.--cjllw | TALK 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are 136 Sami in Ukraine, of whom 3 speaks Sami language. (Ukranian census 2001)

In Ukraine of all places? Have they emigrated there? Jonas Liljeström 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine Stalinist deportation from the Kola peninsula... probably there are other enclaves too, Siberia??--AkselGerner (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lapps race page

The Lapps race page was a historical racial definition of the anthropologist Francois. His definition does not necessarily agree with the current definition of the Lapps people. He defined them to have bear faces and be very ugly. This racial definition of a bear-faced, ugly people does not belong on the Lapps people page. The Lapps race page is a historical definition of race and shouldn't be merged with the contemporary definition of the Lapps people. -- Dark Tichondrias 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's the Lapp people (preferred name these days "Sami"), not Lapps...and second, it is the same people he's talking about. Hence this information belongs in the main article. It can and should be noted it's a historical definition. Nobody will think Wikipedia thinks this is a legitimate definition of the modern people. --Lukobe 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects vs. Separate Languages

Whereas this article states:

The Sami language is divided into nine dialects, of which several have their own written languages (orthography).

The article on Sámi languages states:

Sami is frequently (and erroneously) believed to be a single language.

In my opinion, the article on Sámi languages is correct and this one wrong and is tantamount to saying that Dutch and English are one and the same language because they had a common ancestor and can somewhat be understood if you try hard enough. Try looking up the same words from these vocabularies of the three spoken in Finland:

http://www.uta.fi/~km56049/same/

It is easy to spot the differences and it is undeniably easy for speakers of one Sámi language to learn another; however, this does not make them the same language.

-yupik

84.230.105.54 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chernobyl?

i'm removing the obscure reference to the chernobyl disaster under "see also". Joeyramoney 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a major effect (in parts of Sweden, at least) of the disaster. But not as "contamination of the Sami people" like the removed text said — it was the trade in reindeer meat that was heavily affected. As I recall it, Chernobyl fallout is still a factor to consider if you own reindeer. JöG 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Church

Under the Religion section, I have disambiguated "Orthodox Church" to Eastern Orthodox Church. If someone has more specific information, such as that it should be Russian Orthodox Church, please change it. Thanks. Disambiguation link repair - You can help! --Iggle 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race theories in History section

I have removed the two paragraphs below from the history section because of two reasons. First, I find them to be too obscure to be included in the summary of the history of the Sami people. Second, I think the history section is too long considered that there is a seperate article for Sami history. I have not moved these two paragraphs into a seperate section or article since I am not sure whether they should be included in the Sami people article or be in an article of their own (race theories of the 18th century or something like that). Personally, I favor the last.

Removed paragraphs:

Historically, there have been theories about the supposed Asian origin of the Sami. In fact, in the early 19th century, the now-discredited theory of Ural-Altaic languages was believed even by the Finns, who arranged many ethnographic expeditions to Mongolia to find this theoretical link between the Asian and Finnic peoples. Stereotyped physical features, phrenology and other pseudosciences were used to "prove" the supposed Asian origin of the Sami. However, the theory did not hold water: no common vocabulary was established, nor did genetic studies show any significant links. DNA studies show that although the Sami are isolated from the common European gene pool, and share some genetic markers with other arctic peoples, they are unambiguously European. One should consider the cultural origin of the Asian origin theory: ideas of Swedish and Norwegian racial supremacy over the more Eastern, and therefore inferior peoples, used to retroactively justify military invasions to Finnic-speaking territories. These theories still survive in some Swedish and Norwegian neo-Nazi circles.

In A New Division of Earth, François Bernier (1612-1688), one of the first in a long line of racist scientists, defined the Sami to be a "species" with stunted and compact bodies, big feet, broad shoulders, and bear-looking, elongated faces. He called them very ugly, and considered them to be closer to animals than other human species.

Labongo 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea of an Asian ancestry, which the Scandinavians extensively promoted, is still found even in 'respectable' sources. It has to be mentioned, since this pathological science has affected the public perception significantly. --Vuo 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind mentioning it. I just don't thinkt the history section is the right place to put it. Also, I don't think I am the right person to write such a section or article. Labongo 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Sami sucked the borders freely until 1826???

I couldn't find the culprit for this change, but what was the original verb? -Yupik 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably "crossed." --Leifern 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That would work, thanks! -Yupik 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Binland

So what is Binland, and why is it not mentioned anywhere but in this article ?--Vindheim 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A very good question indeed. I have never, ever heard of it - and I've read quite a lot on Sami history. It might refer, to Biarmland, a region that nobody really knows where was any more but is traditionally considered to have been roughly equivalent to Arkhangelsk county in Russia or the White Sea coast of Karelia. However, how "Biarmland" turns into "Binland" is beyond me. The entry might even be a joke, as far as I'm conserned - I have never heard of it.

--Misha bb 17:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Binland" was just "Finland", unnoticed vandalism by someone. --Drieakko 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Recently from Finland"

There has been done vandalism in the Genetic History section due to ignorance or pure provocation. It appears at first as the article have been made more compact and maybe not so necessary information have been removed. Thats ok, however the sentences has been changed so it appears that the Saami recently came to todays territories from somewhere in Finland. This is higly incorrect and the genetic findings do not support this. The genetics dont support a recent arrival from Finland to todays Saami areas but rather a 6000-7000 year isolation on the northern shield.

I think the sentence intended to say that Finnish people came to Sapmi, and that some Sami people have been assimilated into the population in todays Finland. I have rewritten the sentence.Labongo 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This may, or may not, have been similar to what I just added, so just in case, I'll clarify what I mean: Saami habitation in Finland has been historically documented to have at some point extended all the way down to the south coast, but receded to present it's present "border" in the face of Finnish expansions. So, in other words, the Saami didn't come to Sapmi, rather Sapmi shrank. Also documented is Saami assimilation into finnish population along the way of that expansion/recession--AkselGerner (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gene Wars reference"

I noticed someone added the "Gene Wars" article to the genetic history section as some kind of better explanation for the description made. The article is not enlightning the subject, but sturring up that there is supposedly political agenda behind the inclusion of this section. Almost all references are at the link section for those who want to read further to make up their own mind about the findings so far.

[edit] height?

I read in a World Book that Sami average height is five feet. True?

How much is that in metres? I'm Sami and 1.70. I think that's standard, maybe a teeny bit taller than standard.--Misha bb 10:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Five feet = 152 centimeters. I believe that is too low, since the average height of the Samis has increased in the last 50 years. Perhaps you can find statistics about the height of the Norwegian population that is divided into regions, and thereby find the average height in typical Sami areas (Kautokeino, Karasjok)?Labongo 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent conscription records (2006) describe the average heigh for Finnmark as 176.7 cm and Troms 178.8 cm compared to the country average 179.9 cm. Source www.ssb.no —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
But as far as I know only 25% of Finnmark's population are registred as Sami. Of course, though, if you count everyone who could be registred as Sami I don't think it's to radical to estimate it at well above 50%... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.236.18 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] SAMI GENOCIDE BY SWEEDEN?

Do somebody know something about this topic?

First of all, please don't type your topics all in capital letters.

OT: It can hardly be classed as a genocide. The Swedish government financed race-biological institute which wanted to "save and preserve the north-germanic race". This was done by sterilizing lesser races in hope that they would in due time perish. The program hit the sami especially hard. Their graves were plundered to provide skulls and research material etc. But they were never mass murdered. Sweden, altough leading in the field (the NSDAP even sent people to learn from the Swedes), was far from alone. USA, Germany, Finland, Denmark, the list goes on, had simmilar programs. The only really notable thing in the case of Sweden is that it went on for so long, it continiued after WW2 (in to the 1970s if I'm not misstaken). --DerMeister 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lesser races" ? Jeez.
There was for sure etnic cleansing like operations by the Swedes that resultet in a movement of Sami northwards. Also in Norway it has been known that peasents chased Sami away into the more remote valleys and mountains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Well yeah but that was like the dark ages or during the time that the germanians settled scandinavia, thats hardly of any relevance. It happened all around the world and was maybe a bit unconscious racism. The sami were simply in the way of the germanians so they chased them away, not because they were sami but just because they were in the way. --DerMeister 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gene obsession?

Referring to, f. ex. the "mongoloid" debate above, Why is it so interesting to classify us in some "race"? There is no such thing as human races. There is only genetic variation. Of course, it is possible to identify some "common traits" in ethinc groups but these are all stereotypics that meany members of the group deviate from - increasingly so as globalization goes on. I know about Sami who have dark skin and curly hair, I know about Sami who are so tall they're closing in on two metres of height. I know about Sami who have big, non-slanted eyes.

Why is it so interesting to know the average physical features of the Sami? In the thirties, forties and fifties they measured our skulls at gunpoint, today they map our genes. What I want to know is, do the English have to put up with this? --Misha bb 10:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article gives a fair scientific treatment of the genetic history of the Samis. It also debunks the "mongoloid myths". I don't see any harm in adding information about the average physical measurements, but I don't think there exists any reliable recent sources. My point is that, although the information may seem to be similar to the race theories in the 1930s, the interpretation is different.Labongo 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more talking about what's going on on the discussion page. I'm all good with the entry in itself, as it is now. - Misha BB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.31 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
There is probably a large coastal sami population that has "become" norwegians over the centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Famous people of Sami or part Sami descent

Could a list like that be added to the article? The people I can think of now would be

Morten Gamst Pedersen

Mari Boine

Renée Zellweger

Anyone else feel free to comment or add names

Drogo 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a list will probably be fun. One potential problem is that some people may (sadly) not want to be "outed" as Sami (one example is Lene Marlin http://www.radiotromso.no/les/6120.html). Other famous people (at least in Norway) are: Ole Henrik Magga, Nils Gaup, Helga Pedersen and Nils-Aslak Valkeapää. And, perhaps Balto the dog can be regarded as Sami :) 129.242.18.199 08:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

True, no one should be put on this kind of list if they do not wish so. Altough I know Morten Gamst Pedersen has said he's proud of his Samic roots recently, and Mari Boine is kind of no need to discuss as it is the Sami music she's famous for. Renée I don't know really, so maybe she should not be on the list. Drogo 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is OK to put someone on the list if there is a reliable source for the Sami origin of someone. The Renée Zellweger article claims that she partially Sami, so she can probably be added to the list. I suggest that you just start a list such that others can add (or remove) people from it. Labongo 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Zellweiger? Hah, I didn't know. Arthur Arntzen "outed" himself some years ago, so he should be there. Also Björk and Vigdis Finnbogadottir are members of an Icelandic club supporting research into Sami immigration to that country in the middle ages - but I don't know if they are descendants or just interested for some other reason.--Misha bb 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No joke about Zellweiger, even part of her geneology tree is online showing the maternal line going directly to the core Sami area in Deutnu in Finnmark, Norway. http://www.whildonen.net/slekt/p258.htm

I've put together and uploaded a image of the kind they have on the articles on Norwegians, Russians etc; showing well known people of Sami descent. I used the following criteria: (i) No more than eight people, (ii) well-known "outed" Sámis, (iii) try to make it span as long a period as possible, (iv) try to be conscious of including both sexes, (v) try to have as many regions of Sápmi as possible represented. Russia is missing, but apart from that all countries are represented and at least four Sámi sub-groups (South, Julev, North Inland, North Coast)... --Misha bb (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Facial Features

I have noticed many northern Europeans in Scandanavia have African facial features. Something is up. Are/were these people origianlly African? Would their features put them in the negroid catagory since many like to put black people with 'white' facial features in the white catagory?--71.235.94.254 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:no original research.--AAikio 05:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring this up again. I've noticed that among the Sami people, facial features tend to be roundish with a less prominent nose bridge. Is this a correct assessment or is there a lot of diversity among the Sami people? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it has anything at all to do with Negroids. They possess such features due to their partly Mongoloid ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.4 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

human beings can exhibt all kinds of facial features whether it be european east asian west asian sub saharan african ,south east asian ,north african the old early anthropolgy dogma has been cast aside and the only ones who want to keep it going are fringe neo nazis and the racist afrocentrics who troll the world in search of culture theft--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic history section

I propose moving the Genetic history section to a separate article. I think the content is too detailed for an overview article, but still interesting enough for deserving its own article.Labongo 11:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • One such article already existed, so I have simplified the section in this article such that all the detailed information is in the main article. However, I was not able to rewrite the following portions: "The research indicates that 95.6% of Saami mtDNA originated in the Iberia refugia while only 4.4% is of Siberian-Asiatic origin (Tambets 2004)...Sami Y chromosomes indicate that 29.8% originated in the Iberia refugia and 58.2% originated in Eastern Europe (Tambets 2004). ". What is the implication of these numbers?Labongo 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No longer relevant, but I'll try to answer it anyway. As I gather, the Iberian Refuge was a region (in what is now spain) where plant and animal life found refuge during the latest Ice Age, humans too, from there human expansion in the wake of melting ice began, sparking the reinhabitation of middle and northern europe. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother and to both sons and daughters. The Y chromosome on the other hand is of course only inherited from the father, and then only to the sons. So obviously there is evidence of the early reinhabitation wave, but also of two different genetic influences, a small amount of siberian-asiatic on the female side, with traces of no other group, while on the male side there is a large amount of genetic influence from a group from eastern europe. I don't know how those have been analyzed but the (too) obvious analysis is that the trans-uralic people were the ones that brought the proto-samic-finnic language and that the eastern european group would be responsible for proto-baltic and/or proto-germanic language influences. But the DNA samples are not a "mixture", the genes of every individual competes with the genes of their fellows, so a single woman just happening to have many daughters that survive to have many children of their own could have a big impact on a small population, and similarly (but with less hardship) for men.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lanugage history section

I have problems understanding the Language history section, and I believe most readers who are not linguist will have similar problems. Hence, the text must be simplified. Perhaps it can be merged with the Language section?Labongo 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the entire section to Sami languages, since the content was not integrated into this article.Labongo 10:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization/ To do list

The current version of this article is a mess, and improvements are needed. Please add to the list suggestions for improvements (or any other comments):

  • Add references and sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Shorten History section.
  • Move the Genetic history section to a separate article.
  • Simplify Lanugage history section.
  • Extend Culture subsections.
  • Add information about Sami policy in Finland, Sweden and Russia.
  • Reorganize and shorten Sapmi section.
  • Add information about important Sami organizations.
  • Add a section about the anti-Sami movements.

(Initial list Labongo 11:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've got a general To Do list under my nick for Sámi issues. Please feel free to join in or even if you don't have time, to just add articles you feel are missing or need work. If the article exists, but you feel it needs work, please leave a comment (like Labongo's above) as to what you feel needs to be done with the article in question. Thanks! -Yupik 11:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sami's are Asian people(not european)

they believe shamanism and their god's name is "Tangı" which is derivered from Altaic "Tanrı" the sky god" . they are probably Finnic-ugric-and turkic descendents of asian people.--88.233.178.57 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If they live in Europe then they are Europeans. Genetically and linguistically they are also Europeans. They've been there for over 2,500 years. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well behold this: "The Lapps are of Asiatic origin and speak a language something like that of the Finns. They are a short, thick-set people, with Mongolian features, and spend their lives..." also from later on in the article (on the Skolt Sami "Scolt Lapps"): "Although of Tibetan origin, they are now part of Europe" (which answers the question above). The article also claims the Skolt are "almost certainly the oldest inhabitants of Scandinavia". Does any of this information have a place in an article? The book is (The Book of Knowledge, Ed. Gordon Stowell (1956). 81.105.100.178 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
No. You can find many discussions about the Mongolian/Asian origin theory above and in the archives for this talkpage. Labongo (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. It is good to see somebody has replied for once! (It always seems to take a long time to get an answer on English Wikipedia). Maybe if you can give some authority, you could see my comment at Talk:Fenni? 81.105.100.178 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

(1) What defines an "Asian (non-European) people"? (2) Shamanism is a traditional trait of Sámi religion... And Norwegian religion, Swedish relgion, Celtic religion, Russian religion... (3) There has not ever been a deity called "Tangi" in Sámi mythology. --Misha bb (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea... the user is interested in the turkish people, so probably something along those lines.
(2)The user probably refers to the very widespread and surprisingly coherent shamanic traditions that span from tibet through china and all the way to the bering strait, and across that all the way to Greenland. To my knowledge Norwegian, Swedish and Celtic religions do not have clear shamanic features, aside from the shapechangings and travelling to the underworld/afterlife and back, but there is no sign in the north germanic religions of actual shamans. Russian folk tales do show some strong shamanic-type patterns but they are not religion per se, these mythological features have probably been borrowed from the indigenous peoples of the russian steppes.
(3)Ever is a big word, but it does seem like someone read some very old and erroneous research, there's plenty of that around.--AkselGerner (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoyedic_peoples , wonder why no one made this connection.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.114.222 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there is no connection. Samoyedic languages are a far far far far relative of Sami language, but ethnically there is no connection. --AkselGerner (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Samoyedic peoples wikipage that you cited may be using either 1) using sources from a different language, or; 2) just simply completely wrong. Everything that I know about Sami languages is that it is a Finno-Ugric peoples language. Both sites have a very simular map, but seams almost completly different subjects. Also the Samoyedic peoples site mentions nothing about Sami - which is why maybe no one made the connection. Dinkytown (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The samoyedic language group is entirely to east of the urals and are the other group of languages that together with Fenno-Ugric make up the Uralic language family. Fenno-Ugric of course divides into ugric (hanty, mansi and hungarian) and permic-finnic, and from there to sami follows the following stages >volga-finnic>samic-finnic>Sami So Hungarian is a closer relative to Sami than are Samoyedic languages. There may be some superficial similarities due to similar climates, but these are not proof of any close relation. BTW this "connection" has of course been tested, and it turns out negative in the genome comparisons.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lavvu article

In Talk:Lavvu there is a deadlocked discussion about whether the single-pole lavvu (enstangs lavvo in Norwegian), should be considered as a modern lavvu or a Bell tent. Also, the article tends to represent a very romantic, and from my POV, outdated view of the Sami. Comments from editors with some knowledge about the Sami culture would be useful. Thanks. Labongo 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sami's outside Scandinavia

Are there statistics or estimates of how many Sami live outside Scandanavia? How about in the United States? Ffda (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are statistics for Russia. But I don't expect that there are realiable statistics for example for the US, since the criteria for who may be considered a Sami is vague and it was (and someplaces still is) considered a shame to be of Sami origin. I remember having read someplace that the Sami emigrants to the US was exposed to the same prejustices as in for example Norway and that they therefore choose to become Norwegian/Finnish/Swedish. Labongo (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
About ten-twelve years ago, a member of the Baiki staff (Mai Haumph) came up with a formula that calculated the number of people who immigrated from Norway (X), divided by the population of the counties of Nordland, Troms and Finmark (Y), and divided the number of assumed Sami living in those counties at that time (Z), and they came up with the number of possible 30,000 Sami and decendants of Sami living in the US and/or Canada today - Wheather they know it or not... I don’t off-hand have those XYZ numbers, but it was an honest attempt to get this number, and the potential of 30,000 Sami has since been battered around the North American Sami community ever since. It is also known that this number has many variables involved, but it was the first attempt in trying to come up with a solid number.
It was true that there was a great stigma associated with being Sami a hundred years, or so ago, but much of that attitude has diminished in North America. An example is rarely in American English is anything published as "Lapp" insted of Sami. Today there is far more curiosity than disdain about the Sami people and culture now. However, there are a few Norwegian-American hold-outs such as comedian Garrison Kellior who still don’t want to talk about anything of Sami, not even the word "lapp", but that’s another story…. Dinkytown (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. :)
Garrison Keillor is NOT Norwegian-American. He is of Scottish and English descent and he was raised in a non-Lutheran church. He did, however, grow up, attend college, and work in Minnesota amongst a plethora of descendants of immigrants from Norway, which is how his shtick was inspired. He has discussed this.
Some references regarding his ancestry:
1. A journal article from the University of Virginia
2. A short autobiography by Keillor, himself.
3. See Question 3 of the Official Prairie Home Companion Web Site's Quiz on Garrison Keillor
Best Regards, Peer Gynt (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Peer - Thanks for telling me. I actually just found this out last week - geeezzz... This is something that really hasn't been well advertised in Minnesota (or conveniently overlooked - for obvious reasons). This would be a good plot for a conspiracy novel (Garrison excluded, thank you...).
However, despite that Keillor is a Norwegian-inspired story teller – he has never (to the best of my understanding) mentioned anything about Sami in North America, which is disappointing since most of the Sami live in Norway and many Sami descendents live in Minnesota and elsewhere. I haven’t researched it yet, but I have never heard him describe Sami on his radio show. Thanks for the info. Take Care Dinkytown (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sami in the United States?

Does someone have information about Sami organizations or contacts in the United States or elsewhere, which may offer more information? Sincerely, PopularPR (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US there is a journal Báiki, a news blog Árran (Sami publication), and an organiztion Sami Siida of North America. I hope this may help. Labongo (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sámi collage

Due to claims of non-freeness against two pictures in the collage this image will be removed and eventually replaced with other ones. If anyone out there owns pictures of Valkeapää and/or Nils Gaup it would be great if you upload them on the wikipages for these artists and I will include them in a new collage. (See also discussion on famous people of Sami descent)--Misha bb (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Genetic History" section

I have been watching the Genetic History section of this article for some time and there are several red flags going up here on my part:

1) The inclusion of the paragraph by 201.53.61.233 has been lifted straight from this website [5]. It should be paraphrased rather than copied directly. It also should be correctly cited in Wiki fashion.

2) What does "...almost exactly intermediate..." mean? The website is an academic abstract and would need further explanation on this.

3) Explain "...shows that Lapps/Sami are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European." If Sami live in Europe, and have historically lived in Europe, then they are European. The word "Lapp" is archaic and derogatory.

4) All the paragraphs in this section contradict each other.

5) Most troubling is that there has been extensive scientific study of the Sami for nearly two hundred years - and much of it has been negative. The governments of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany have all used Sami studies to prove the "lower status" of the Sami in comparison to each of the respective countries. Many of these studies had justified and carried out forced sterilization of the Sami by the Swedish government - and worse, extermination by the Nazi's, who concidered the Sami on par genetically with Jewish people - and we all know were that went.

One should be very careful in describing scientific studies of the Sami, without the negitive description of this history, when there has been a long history of abuse. This section would be better served if this was explained further, rather than jumping on the 'Sami Genetic' fad... Because of the above, I have been tempted in removing the whole section, but I'll wait for a responce before I do. Dinkytown (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi 201... I didn't think there was any ill intent on anyone's part. Although I can appreciate the genetic study and its pursuit, a lot of people - including academia are missing the history and reasoning of past genetic/phenotype research. There is a good movie called "Give Us Our Skeletons (1999)" that describes this whole scientific research on the Sami - sometimes literally at gun point, to justify their own racial theories. I would be willing to incorporate that into this article, but waiting for someone to clean up the Genetic History section first. Thank you for your responce - Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I having looked at the material I definitely agree that such a section, if it need to be there at all, should be very carefully monitored and worded. The list of refs to genetic studies at the bottom should be probably used instead when relevant. Of course it is relevant to ask "Is there a "genetic history" section for Swedes? Or for the English? etc. etc.". However, since there are so many misconceptions and lies in circulation, I feel that it is probably wise to have something there, but it definitely has to be well deliberated so that it clearly addresses the problems, provides needed clarity and disencourages sensationalist gene-tripping. That still has to be done.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"...sensationalist gene-tripping" (LOL) - No one in the history of man kind has ever said that phrase - until now... Good point about the "genetic history" section for Swedes. Although there is plenty of sources for 'Sami genetic studies', it is from an outsiders POV. Most of the Sami POV is in oral history and very little in English and even then, only very recently. There is a good Sami film that I have called Give Us Our Skeletons which describes this whole thing from the Sami POV (with English subtitles). I am going to use that as a source for that section. Dinkytown (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Such theories formed basis for government sterilization campaigns against the Sami." I took that out, since I have not heard of such campaigns against the Sami. Norway and Sweden had such campaigns against the Roma (Northern Gypsy), but I've never heard about such campaigns against us...--Misha bb (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Misha - I will let you take it out for now, but I will dispute your argument. There has been a program as part of the Swedish eugenics and 'racial hygine' program that did target Sami, but not exclusivly and only one of several groups targeted. I am trying to find the time to included this section in there - have several sources, but its complicated in describing and need time to do so. The point of this section is that there has been a long history of study of Sami genetics - and much of it negative, to the loss of the Sami. Will descibe more later. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dinkytown. I look forward to reading more about that subject, it sounds quite interesting. If that really happened... Well, it probably shouldn't shock me but it would.
Here are some of the links I found, two swedish and one in english. The swedish race-hygiene programme ran from 1935-1975 and in that period 63000 people were sterilized, mostly women (numerically the biggest group is ethnically swedish social cases and many probably just depressed). I haven't found numbers on the impact on Sami, but I did find a source saying that in some cases the "justification" for the sterilization included mention of the subject being Sami. "Tatter" people however were much more often targeted, being the most suffering group in relation to population count.[6], [7], [8] --AkselGerner (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Labongo

  • Labongo: first of all, welcome back...

- Second, what you just did could constitute vandalism. If you have a problem with the sourced material - fine, then you discuss it here on this page. You should know that by now...

- Third, you probably haven't read anything in this Gentic History section above. Had you did, you would have learned that this issue has a long history and discussed in detail by polite people who don't removed sourced matterials like you just did. You don't believe me? Ask AkselGerner (talk) above. He (and others) was a gentleman about this whole issue and one of the sources that you removed was his. You owe him an apology...

- Forth, this issue has been discussed on the internet in detail and has been well documented, the Swedish government has apologized and paid reparations/damages to the victims. Do your research before critizing.

- Fifth, in all the discussions with you, I don't recall you bringing any reliable sources to any discussion with me. I hope that will change in the future. Dinkytown (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable Sami and people of Sami Heritage" section.

I have removed the "Notable Sami" section as it is unreferenced. Below are the names of those who were included on the list. Note that the list is in disarray and not alphabetized and lacking any sources. Undoubtedly some of these people are Sami, or of Sami descent - but many seem to be included by mere guesswork. Please feel free to readd them if they are cited as Sami or of Sami heritage from a reliable source:

  • Lars Levi Laestadius (1800 - 1861), religious reformist, bothanist and ethnologist.
  • Isak Mikal Saba (1875 - 1925) politician and writer. Was the first Sámi parliamentarian (Norwegian Labour Party) and wrote the Sámi national anthem.
  • Elsa Laula Renberg (1877 - 1931), politician who among other things organized the first international Sámi conference.
  • Samuel J. Balto, Arctic explorer - one of the first people to cross Greenland on skis (together with Nansen) - and gold miner.
  • Nils-Aslak Valkeapää (1943 - 2001), musician and artist.
  • Arthur Arntzen, comedian.
  • Joni Mitchell (1943 - present) musician and painter.
  • Ole Henrik Magga (1947 - present) politician. First President of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament (NSR) and first Chairman of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
  • Nils Gaup (1955 - present) film director. Well known films include Ofelas (nominated for the Academy Awards) and The Kautokeino Rebellion.
  • Hans-Ragnar Mathisen, artist.
  • Mari Boine (1956 - present) musician.
  • Renée Zellweger (1969 - present) actress.
  • Helga Pedersen (1973 - present) politician. First Sámi member of Government (Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs, Norwegian Labour Party).
  • Mikkel Gaup, actor.
  • Anni-Kristiina Juuso (1979 - present), actress.
  • Ailo Gaup (1980 - present), a motorcross sportsman who inventedet the "underflip".
  • Morten Gamst Pedersen (1981 - present), soccer player (currently playing for the Blackburn Rovers).
  • Lavra Somby and Sara Marielle Gaup, musicians in the band Adjagas.
  • The Sápmi national football team.
  • David Kompornollen (aka David van Compernolle), (1987-Present) A former goaltender in SM-Liiga hockey (2003-2006).

Thanks. Hopefully, some can be cited. ExRat (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why on god's green earth would you remove the entire list? Do you perhaps doubt that the majority of these people are of Sámi origin? These are mainly people who are known precisely for being Sámi pioneers in different fields. The only ones who - arguably - demand some referencing are the Americans Mitchell and Zellweger, whose Sámi background is not well known. All the others are self-outed people of Sámi descent (OK, I don't know about this Kompornollen guy, I've never heard of him at all). If you can argue that somebody in particular should not be on the list, please remove those particular names from the list and ask for references - or mark them with citation needed. Do not delete the entire section! Or do you perhaps demand a reference to prove that Mari Boine is Sámi? Or do you doubt the "Sáminess" of Norway's national attire wearing Minister of Fisheries? Or are you sceptical towards the Sápmi national football team? I'm reinserting the list, and hope for the future that you would limit yourself towards removing individual names and/or ask for references - instead of removing perfectly well known Sámi people. --Misha bb (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way the list is not disarray: I have sorted the names to reflect when these people lived. (Once again, I do not know how Kompornollen fits into this system - he was entered after I sorted the list. --Misha bb (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found references to Mitchell and Zelweger, the two on the list whose Sámi background is not well known, and inserted them. --Misha bb (talk)
And now there's also a reference for Morten Gamst Pedersen. He's been interviewed about it couple of times, but I've noticed some people still want to not believe it. So here it is.--Misha bb (talk)
"Why on god's green earth would you remove the entire list?" - Because they are UNREFERENCED. As I stated, obviously some are undoubtedly of Sami origin. Wikipedia lists such as these have a habit of becoming unmanageable without references. All inclusions of Wikipedia should be cited with reliable sourcing. "Or do you perhaps demand a reference to prove that Mari Boine is Sámi? Yes, actually, I do! All list inclusions should demand a reference! "The only ones who - arguably - demand some referencing are the Americans Mitchell and Zellweger..." No, actually, all of them do. Also, they weren't deleted - that is why I placed them list on the talk page, so that they could be referenced. If you are going to place them back on the page, you could also take the time to help reference them or at least have sorted them alphabetically. ExRat (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up, alphabetized and added a "fact tag" to the section. ExRat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to further discuss (i) the act of removing a section rather than inserting "citation needed" (ii) whether alphabetization is a better way of systematizing a section than listing people after year of birth. The list is up again, and using alphabetization is fine by me. I do, however, feel a bit baffled that you demand references for people who are known precisely for being Sámi pioneers. My question is, would you want a reference to back up that William Shakespeare was English? That's just about what you are doing when you ask for "evidence" that Mari Boine is Sámi. However, I want to end this as quickly as possible, in a constructive way, so I'm not going to protest that individuals listed, as a rule need references.
However, quite a few of the people listed here have surnames that in North Europe are exclusively Sámi surnames: Balto, Boine, Gaup, Juuso, Magga, Laula, Saba, Somby, Valkeapää. If you have one or more of these surnames, you are undoubtedly of Sámi origin. Demanding references for these would be like demanding proof that someone called "Hansen" is of Scandinavian origin. That leaves us with five listed individuals who are not referenced, and do not have stereotypically Sámi surnames: Arntzen, Laestadius, Kompornollen, Mathisen and Pedersen. I have now found and inserted references for all except Kompornollen and Arntzen. I have personally read the newspaper article where Arntzen came out of the closet as a Sámi, but I haven't found it online - so far. Also, I have not found anything on this Kompornollen person being a Sámi. Thus, I am inserting "citation needed" after Kompornollen and Arntzen - though as I said, I have read the article on Arntzen myself. Having done this, I will remove the "not citing its' sources" tag on the section - as now only two names on the list are not either obviously belonging or referenced. --Misha bb (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kompornollen is most likely vandalism, so I took it out. It has a suspicious form, and there's no hits on google that are not from here. It was added by an anonymous editor with no other contributions and with no edit summary.[9] --AkselGerner (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling difference between Sámi and Sami.

I changed all the spelling differences between Sámi and Sami as Sami is the common spelling in English. I left the Sámi spelling if the word is within a title, such as Sámi soga lávlla, Beaivváš Sámi Theatre, and Norwegian Sámi Parliament. Comments? Fire away... Dinkytown (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -