Talk:Finnic mythologies

ok, these articles are too scattered for the attention they get. I suggest we merge Finnish mythology, Estonian mythology and Sami mythology as well as this one into Finnic mythology (or Finno-Lappic mythology). dab (𒁳) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

in fact, strike that, the Finnish and Estonian articles are well developed and should stay separate per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that Henry of Livonia gives a pretty good overview of the proto Estonian religious customs, their pagan priests and also some legends... So the Estonian mythology at least needs some serious work and the opinionated statements that also are factually incorrect, need to be rewritten. I'm on it but it might take some time.--Termer (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has a definition of Finnic of its own. It is a different definition than in the article Finnic Peoples. Both of these definitions are arbitrary. There is no common Finnic mythology, if we mean Lappic-Finnic by Finnic. However there is Baltic-Finnic mythology. Also Finnic means usually Baltic Finnic. I will remove lappish mythology, since it is not Finnic (Baltic-Finnic) Tuohirulla puhu 16:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

David Adams Leeming (professor emeritus of comparative literature at the University of Connecticut) clearly defines Finnic mythology in his European Mythology 2003 ISBN 9780195143614, as of the Finnic peoples: Permian peoples, Volga Finns and Baltic Finns. He says the Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included [1]. So there is no need to remove the Sami mythology from this article.--Termer (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest deletion of this article and placing its fragmentary pieces of information in other articles. You have presented a source that mentions and defines the term of Finnic mythology, but you have not presented sourced proof that there exists a special relationship between all of these different "Finnic mythologies". Different Finnic peoples (no matter how you define the word Finnic) have very different mythologies. Some, like Sami mythology, are deeply shamanistic, some others are not shamanistic almost at all. Some are mythologies of hunters, some others are mythogies of agricultural societies. Gods are different, gnomes are different, myths are different, stories are different. You can have a term of Finnic mythology defined in your source, but tell me, what your source says about the real world relation between these different mythologies. Can your source name even one concrete tie between all of these mythologies, exept linquistic one (which is, by the way, very weak)? Tuohirulla puhu 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't created the article or chosen the name for it. It was long here before I noticed it and since the term "Finnic mythology" gets 58 returns at google books [2] and 6 at google scholar [3], there is no reason to delete the article, that's for sure. As I understand it , the concern is that Finnic may refers to the Finns of Finland proper and you don't want to get associated for example with the Sami? A solution would be to call the article "Finno-Ugric mythology" that would include the Hungarians? If that would be desirable I wouldn't have any problems with it.
the bottom line, from where did you get that you have not presented sourced proof that there exists a special relationship between all of these different "Finnic mythologies"? Why would I need to present such a "proof"? Shouldn't the facts speak for themselves, like the list of gods that you removed from the article? So that the reader can decide what's different whats similar? The first thing I'm going to do as soon as I can, restore the list of the god names according to published sources so that deleting the content from the article could not be justified by simply removing it.--Termer (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Without sources, you can not present your arguments or "facts" in Wikipedia. One such claim is that "finnic" gods are related. List of gods is an argument for that claim. Such an argument needs sources.

Your repeated claim, that I (or anyone else disargeeing with you) would not like to be associated with Sami is a personal insult, suggesting that I would have something against Sami, that my opinions would be a kind of racism. There is nothing wrong to be associated with Sami, there is nothing wrong with Sami. I love Sami people, and consider them very important part of my country and all of Fennoscandia. However, Finnish mythology does not have special relation to Sami mythology; these people do not share a common mythology. Tuohirulla puhu 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A solution would be to call the article "Finno-Ugric mythology" that would include the Hungarians? If that would be desirable I wouldn't have any problems with it.

So even you don't believe in "Finnic mythology"? Finno-Ugric is a different set of languages than any definion of "Finnic" that has been presented so far. Are you now willing to scrap "Finnic mythology", and choose a different set, as long as it contains Finnish and Sami mythologies? Tuohirulla puhu 12:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about and what is it what you want. the question is not about my religion, what do I believe but what do the sources say about the subject in hand. So far it's been only me who has brought sources to this article and edited the text accordingly. In case you do have any alternative sources available, please feel free to use them and add the facts. Regarding Sami, the languages are Finno-Volgaic languages so I'm not surprised that the mythology is looked at together with speakers of Baltic Finninc and Volga Finnic languages. Therefore again, in case you know any alternative takes on the subject than Leeming, David Adams (2003) in European Mythology, you shouldn't hesitate to present the sources and cite what they say. --Termer (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. I agree with dab [4] here regarding blanking and had to revert your edit.[5]--Termer (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not presented how your source links these mythologies, what proof it gives for this relation. You have only given a source for a definition of a term, and most of text in the article are not explained by that definition and source. Present a source that gives some or any concrete proof that there exists a special relationship between these very different hunter-gatherer, sea fisher, pastoralist and agricultural, shamanistic and non-shamanistic cultures, in their mythologies. Also it would be great if you could explain how "Finnic mythology" breaks the general rule, that culture and mythology are deeply linked to the way of life or livelihood; that hunter gatherers, for example, all around the world have similar kinds of cultures and myths even if they are not related. Why Finnish culture that has been based on agriculture since prehistoric times, would belong to the same "Finnic mythology" as pastoralist and formerly hunter gatherer Sami?

Also, present a source that explains how hungarian mythology does not belong to this specially related group.

Again: you wrote: A solution would be to call the article "Finno-Ugric mythology" that would include the Hungarians? If that would be desirable I wouldn't have any problems with it.

Are you willing to scrap "finnic mythology" or not? What is your point here? To make an article that somehow links Sami and Finnish mythologies, no matter what other groups are included? Tuohirulla puhu 21:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? how "my source" links these mythologies? Why don't you read the sources that are not mine in any way. European Mythology By David Adams Leeming is available under the link at google books and there is a whole section of pp.133-141 Finnic and Other- Non-Indo-European Mythologies. Out of which Tartessians, Turdetans, Iberians and Basques have a chapter on one page and the Finno-Ugrians, that's broken up into two primary subfamilies Finnic and Ugric have the rest, 8 pages. Out of which again, Kalevala has 2 pages. So why don't you read the source it's available online at google books and help to update the article accordingly if anything is not clear about it. And I'm really not getting it what seems to be the problem here?--Termer (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the questions and give the sources that I have asked, or remove the irrelevant and unsourced material from the article.

I just read the relevant parts of Adams' European mythology, and found out that it does not support the way you want this article to be. It also makes some obvious errors, like suggesting that Sami might be Baltic-Finnic, but that is not a main problem. Adams is very brief with Fenno-Ugric mythologies, and does not give much detail. Adams only mentions the term Finnic mythology, but while speaking about the details of mythologies and what he considers is common with them, he uses the term Fenno-Ugric mythology or distinct terms for mythologies for distinct groups, like "Finnish mythology", "Sami mythology", "Hungarian mythology". The only detail he calls as "Finnic mythology" is Finnish Kalevala.

While making comparisons between different mythologies, Adams uses the term "Fenno-Ugric mythology" instead of "Finnic mythology". In all the topics that Adams briefly mentions as common for different groups, he uses the term "Fenno-Ugric mythology" (and not "Finnic mythology"). These include:

• Shamanism
• Astronomy
• Cosmography

This means that "Finnic" god lists, details of "Finnic mythologies", and the common features and comparisons of different "Finnic" mythologies are not supported by Adams European mythology.

Adams also supports what I have already told, that livelihood greatly affects mythologies, and distincts them from each other. Instead of claiming "Finnic" or Fenno-Ugric similarities here, he tells on the page 135 [6] that livelihood (agriculture etc.) makes mythologies to resemble other mythologies with similar livelihood. Adams: Many of the Volga and Permian peoples that became agricultural, not suprisingly, created farming-based myths, that somewhat resemble those of the Balts discussed in chapter 7 (...) The Lapps, who were hunters rather than farmers were prone to totemic animal cults, especially that of the bear of animal lord, a tradition with roots in the neolithic. These are great differences and distinctions that Adams is talking about.

About shamanism Adams writes: Shamanism seems to have been an important influence of the mythology of most of the Finno-Ugric people. He says most, and so leaves some Fenno-Ugric people outside. By this he propably means the known fact that agricultural Fenno-Ugrics, like the the Baltic-Finns, are not mainly shamanistic, not more than Scandinavians with their Seid-tradition, for example. Shamanism, a very central element in mythology, is not shared between all the Fenno-Ugric (or "Finnic") language speaking cultures.

Adams: Finno-Ugric peoples (...) had broken up into two primary subfamilies- Finnic and Ugric (Ugrian)- and then into several smaller groups that would eventually develop into somewhat distinct non-Indo-European mythologies and languages. While explaining the main terms Adams distincts the different mythologies of different Fenno-Ugric language speakers, based on their linquistic development, instead of comparing the cultural similarities. For Adams, the term "Finnic mythology" seems to be based on liquistic relation. Tuohirulla puhu 08:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm clad that in the end you figured it out: For Adams, the term "Finnic mythology" seems to be based on linquistic relation. exactly just that it always has been self-explanatory that Finnic mythology refers to linguistically related mythologies. what else could it refer to, since Finnic peoples are a historical linguistic group of peoples, therefore the term Finnic mythology has always spoken for itself.--Termer (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am tired that you continue verbal tricks, without really discussing, and without giving proper sources to back your claims. "Finnic mythology" is a term based on linquistics, as you now also agree. How can I say this simply enough for you to understand? While it is based on linguistics, it is not based on other fields of science or ethnology, not based on similarities between mythologies, not based on cultural relations, not on similar gods. Linquistics is a science which has found that these languages are related. Adams uses a linquistic term "Finnic" to categorize some mythologies of the speakers of these languages to make it easier for him to discuss the subject of his book. He does not categorize the mythologies by their relation to each other, but by linquistics, by the fact that these people have a linquistic relation. Linquistic relation does not automatically, or even generally mean ethnic, cultural or mythological relation. Most of the text of this article has nothing to do with its subject, this term, for example the definition, origins and founders of this term. There is also a question, is it necessary to have an article about this term at all. If "Finnic mythology" would be a mythology, or a group of specially related mythologies, this article would be ok. But its not, as you agree, as it is based on linguistics. Tuohirulla puhu 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Finnic mythology" is a term based on linguistics has always been obvious and there never has been any reasons to suggest anything else, which it seems you're trying to do? I don't think I'd have anything else to add to this discussion.--Termer (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you could and should give answers for the question why we need an article of Finnic mythology? In other words, what's the point in an article discussing all these separate mythologies together? Tuohirulla seems to think that it is misleading to group all these mythologies together. I have no strong opinion, but arguments for this grouping would be nice.

To avoid confusion, it would be wise to at least state in the article that the various groups of the Finnic peoples are related only linguistically (and only remotedly related even in that case), and the relatively few cultural or mythological similarities they share them are usually extended to Indo-European and other non-Finnic groups as well.

Finnic is a difficult term, as it can be understood in various ways. Sometimes it refers only to Baltic-Finnic populations, sometimes to al Finni-Ugrians. I suggest that this article is renamed to Finno-Ugrian mythologies, as the Finno-Ugrian is more coherent term and the article discusses various and different mythologies of linguistically related populations, and not a single system of myths.--195.237.90.72 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) EditAfter the renaming, the article should include also the Ob-Ugrian mythologies.--195.237.90.72 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Finnic in English is not a confusing term by any means, it refers to the Finnic group of the Finno-Ugrians. The idea that Finnic means Baltic-Finnic only comes it seems from the Baltic-Finnic sources only.--Termer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I also support Finno-Ugric mythologies as a plural term, because there is no just one mythology or system of myths, but different and diverse Finno-Ugric mythologies. Some kind of an analogy for this is how we name the groups of languages; we do not speak of (common) Finno-Ugric language, but Finno-Ugric languages (plural). Baltic-Finnic mythology is still acceptable as a singular term, because Baltic-Finnic mythologies share very much with each other. Kalevala, for example, is collected from speakers of different baltic Finnic languages. But there could not be an opus of Fenno-Ugric or Fenno-Volgaic mythology; it would just be a mess of unrelated material and languages that are not mutually intelligible. Tuohirulla puhu 17:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, but you are wrong from beginning to end. I support Tuohirulla who knows what s/he talks about. You just don't know what you talk about when you talk about the term Finnic. --Ufinne (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you jump on me regarding this? Is it because I'm the only one who's been willing to respond to this nonsense? If you'd look up, the first post on this talk page, it's been dab who has been talking about Finnic mythology, and there is nothing confusing about the term. And I personally don't care if you want to add the Ugric peoples to the scope of this article. Just that currently the content doesn't support it.I added the ugrians to the lead section so that at least the new title would make sense. In case the content is not going to include the Ugrians, the article needs to be rolled back to Finnic only.--Termer (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

agree with Termer, please stop trolling this page. Try to build a reputation by contributing some actual content before giving people grief over your personal sensitivities. Nobody here claims that there is a single "Finnic mythology", ok? Just like nobody claims that there is a single "Slavic mythology" or "Altaic mythology", and yet the pertinent articles reside at Slavic mythology and Altaic mythology (etc.). If you think Wikipedia needs you to get its article titling right at the very least do us the courtesy and familiarize yourself with the relevant policy first. --dab (𒁳) 18:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)