Talk:Sámi peoples

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Northern Indigenous peoples

Why not a separate article for Northern Indigenous peoples? -- Zoe

Good plan. Not today, though! GrahamN 21:12 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

Are the Ainu not sufficiently northern to make the list? --Brion

Not sure. I got the term Northern Indigenous Peoples (best not to turn it into an acronym, I just discovered!), and the list of tribes, from [this article] from [Survival International], a respected and long established authroity on the subject of indigenous tribal peoples. GrahamN 21:34 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)

Ah, I see; the term seems to be Russia-specific. The last Ainu in Sakhalin were evicted to Japan after World War II, so there presumably aren't any left in Russian territory. --Brion

---

80.141.119.26 removed the link to Siberia, saying "There are no Saami in Siberia, but on the Kola peninsula in northern Russia". However, two separate sources cited in the article state that the Saami ARE indigenous to Siberia (http://www.buryatmongol.com/sibnative.html and http://survival-international.org/tc%20siberia.htm). I will add Siberia back in pending an explanation from 80.141.119.26. GrahamN 23:11 24 May 2003 (UTC)

There is no way how Lapps could be indigenous to Siberia. The easternmost place where the Lapps live is Kola Peninsula. However Siberia starts behind the Ural Mountains more than thousand kilometers to east from the easternmost historic Lappish areas. Lapps may or may not be originally from Siberia, but that is a different question not related to this one. The oldest origins of Lapps is a controversial question. Lapps have lived in their historic areas in Fennoscandia for thousands of years and therefore being indigenous there (and not Siberia), no matter where their far ancestors arrived from after (or during) the ice age Tuohirulla 21:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Is there any serious thinking that Saami are related to Vedic traditions in India? Or is this a way-out theory? Rmhermen 04:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard it. This is pure folk etymology. I think this should be deleted from the entry unless someone has a reference for it. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

This sound very far fetched. Tourists visiting the Sami area are often more interested in trying to make connections to far-away peoples in Asia and North America (or Bolivia...as some told me..), than actually study the unique culture at hand. So forget about vedic traditions, unless you have solid proof.

---

There seems to be an arithmetical conflict regarding the Saami population of Norway, between the Norway page and the Saami one. Saami says: The population of about 85,000 ... Roughly half the Saami population lives in Norway (so that would be 40000 ish). But Norway says ...Saami people (about 6000 people. Source: Samemanntallet).. I don't know if this due to the difference between those who are ethnically Saami and those who speak Saami, or some "registered Saami" issue, or if it's just a matter of the wording needing tightening-up somewhere. Still, the two pages (as they read right now) seem to directly contradict one another. -- Finlay McWalter 17:52, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The number 40 000 in Norway is an estimate. Norway undoubtedly has the largest number of Sami, but in coastal areas of Norway, it is hard to distinguish Sami from Norwegians, since the present Norwegians have a great deal of Sami ancestry, and the present Sami are much more assimilated into Norwegian culture than the ones in inland areas. The present number of 11 000 people registered in the samemanntallet are the ones who have declared themselves Sami, a voluntary thing. Teh others may or may not regard themselves as Sami, and quite a few are fluent in Sami language, without referring to themselves as Sami. This is because it is still a social stigma in rural coastal areas to be a Sami. Today many people "step out of the closet" as Sami, so the gap between the estimate of 40 000 and the number declared in the samemanntallet is narrowing.

The various estimates concerning the Sami vary enormously, so any number should be taken with a pinch of salt.

---

This article claims that jojks are known in English as yoicks. My source spells it joiks and gives no other transliterations (though it does mention the North Saami luohti and the South Saami vuolle). Googling indicates that joiks is the most common, but yoicks gives virtually no hits (can't tell for sure how many, because there seem to be other uses of the word). I can only find one page in English which uses yoicks to refer to this[1]. Can anybody clear this up?

Tuf-Kat 20:43, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

The name in Sami is juoiggus, and this word has a separate Norwegian adaptation; "joik", and a similar Swedish one "jojk". A word starting with "j" in Sami, Norwegian or Swedish, is pronounced "y". An exampel is "jul" (Christmas), which is also used in English as "yule", the pronunciation is exactly the same. The average English speaker is probably unaware of this, so spelling "juoiggus/joik/jojk" as "yoik" in English probably makes English speakers pronounce the word correctly.

---

I have also seen the inhabitants of Lapland referred to as "Laps". Is this a misspelling of "Lapps", or is it valid? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:03, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

The words Laps and Lapland have been used extensively, especially in Sweden and Finland (and in countries outside the Sami area) historically. In Norway one would often call the Sami "Finn" (a term that you still hear sometimes), although Lap was also heard. However, with the increased respect for Sami identity, we today prefer to say Sami. And their ancestral lands are hence called Sàpmi.

It's Sami not Saami

The best English term for this population is "Sami". This reflects the native designation "Sápmi" (where -pm- is a grade of -m-; Sámi is a declined form of this). The Norwegian/Swedish designation is "samisk". The spelling "Saami" is a Finnicism (Finnish "saami"); since most Sami live in Norway, it makes sense to borrow a Germanic spelling into English rather than a Finnic one. Further, the spelling "Saami" risks hypercorrection to "Såmi" (cf. Haakon/Håkon, Aarhus/Århus). The New Oxford Dictionary of English gives "Sami" on page 1644. "Saami" does not occur there. The term "Saami" is attested; a google search will certainly find it. But it is not the recommended form in English. Evertype 16:00, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. But are you sure that it is a finnicism, though? I would suppose that it is likely to be a rendition of the acute accent in Sámi in 7-bit ASCII. arj 21:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The people in question have had some difficulties to unite on what the best transliteration to English should be, and there is no reason to believe that this issue is finally concluded. You can find representatives who argue against Sámi for it being too difficult for Americans who panic for accents, against Saami for being too difficult for Indo-Europeans who don't know how to handle vowel-length, against Sami for beeing too close to the more "oppressive" or more alien Germanic nations (compared to the akin Finno-Ugric or Finnic, and again against Sami as it more likely renders an unwished distorted English pronounciation.

I don't know what to do in Wikipedia, but one thing is clear. The statement "the spelling "Saami" is found but is a Finnicism" can not remain where it's inserted. Wikipedia-article usually do not in the first sentence argue in controversies. Further, it's a peculiar and strange assertation, as the languages of this people really are Finno-Ugric, why a scandinavism ought to be more out of place than a finnicism. Finally, the only name which Wikipedia ought to take a clear stand against, based on the sentiments in the people in question, is the "Lapp" term, by many considered particularly offensive. The first-sentence stance against Saami is thus unfortunate, as it might give the impression of Wikipedia not taking the reservations against Lapp- as serious as against "Finnicisms".
/Tuomas 06:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean we should remove all forms of "Lapp(ish)" from the article? Lapp(onia) is something that have been used, at least from the Carta Marina since 1539 to ~1990. //Rogper 22:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, but we shouldn't give the usage prominence. /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sure that the -aa- is a Finnicism, yes.

...or Samiism... :-) /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There's no reason to use -aa- in English while -a- is used in Norwegian.

The issue is exactly this. Should the indigenous people be shown respect — or their Germanic masters? /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Oxford (which one can consider to be authoritative) prefers Sami. Tuomas' point about not bothering with the word "Finnicism" is well-taken. "Sami" rhymes with "swami" in English, by they way. Same spelling, same sound. "Saami" just isn't right.

The Sami Parlament, Sametinget, uses "Sami" on their homepage. I've been using Sami (=singular Same, plural Samer in Swedish) or Samic (=Samisk in Swedish). // Rogper 22:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

They do this year, yes. I don't care much about which transcription to use, but as information the first vowel is (should be) rather close to, but not quite as, English arm, SAMPA /A:/, or maybe rather as a long version of the sound in cup, SAMPA /sV:mI/. Swami is maybe a better approximation than Slavic. The way my Arabic teacher pronounces Ba'ath is even closer. However, some sound distinction get lost in the transfer to other languages, that can't be avoided. /Tuomas 20:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

In Sami, Sami is spelt Sàmi. Accents are hard and difficult to many. Why not simply say Sami, and leave out all the rest? This is a direct Sami-English adaptation, not via Norwegian/Swedish or Finnish.

I am a Sami, and the native way of saying Sami in sound is "Sæmi" not Sami or Saami. "æ" = "ae", using norwegian "æ". Also notice that the Finns call them self "Suomi" indicating some kind of relationship.

It doesn't indicate any other relation than a linguistic one which is being discussed above. The term Suomi is pretty recent and I think dates from the beginning of the 19th century. Before that there were tavastians, carelians, savonians etc.

If Sami is pronounced like "Sæmi" in Sami, all texans will say it right if spelled Sami. I cannot see the problem...

Sámi is pronounced "Sæmi", like the above stated, so it shouldn't cause too many problems for English-speakers to pronounce correctly, unless they try to hypercorrect it to be "Sami". And the Finnish version of the word is saame, not saami. Sámi is the correct form, not Sàmi. -yupik

germanic? scythian?

"Sami People are a group of Germanic and Scythian tribes"...

I have grave doubts that the above is not at all correct.

Sami language is indisputedly known of being a Finnic language. Not germanic, nor scythian (who also probably were indoeuropean).

(Sami old religion and culture is known to be close with finnic shamanism.)

The above should be altered: Sami people are a group of Finnic tribes, or something like that. Germanic and scythian taken away. 213.243.157.114 21:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it was unclear where the Sami first come from, although they nowadays speak a Finnic language. It seems that this could have been, because of close contact with Finnic tribes in some way, though.

Scytians? Sounds very far-fetched to me. Being a guide for foreign tourists in Northern Norway, I have heard tourists connect the Sami with any possible ethnic group on the globe, from Tibetans via Bulgarians to Bolivan Indigenous groups. Often based on "similarities" in clothes etc. Clothes of course have changed ove the centuries, and are no indication whatsoever.

There is indication of a unknown language substratum in the Saami language indicating a possible language shift from a unknown language to a finnic one, this is due to the fact that a considerable part of Saami genetics have its origin in the Iberia ice age refuge. One hypothesis is that it may be a ancient form of basque. http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~lillekas/mainlanguage.html

Basque? Not again! The origin of Sami is not more mysterious than that of other peoples: If we go back a few centuries, there would have been a continuous belt of Finno-Ugric languages stretching from Sapmi though Finland, Estonia, Latvia, North-Western Russia down to the Upper Volga, with isolates into western Siberia. Today this belt is broken up by the advance of Russian, Norwegian and Swedish, but numerous relatives survive thoughout this area. Forget about far-fetched theories. Poor basques, they seem to be related to almost any exotic ethnic group in this world, according to unscientific theories.

Indeed, the sami are about as germanian as they are fenno-ugric..

Sami: governmental definitions

The Organization section can be confusing to read. It's not clear on who can vote where if certain operational criteria are met. Splitting along state lines may improve it. A-giau 18:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It also seems to suggest there's a united, transnational Sami Parliament when there are in fact several, with rather different powers. A-giau 18:52, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official status

It'd be nice to have some information on official status or official recognition (perhaps described along state lines), and a bit of details about the implications. Info on related social movements would be appreciated, as well. A-giau 19:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Lapp derogatory?

There seems to be quite some controverse about the name Lapp: It is said to be offending and derogatory. On the other hand, almost anyone not involved in ethnological affairs uses the word. I would like to know: If Lapp is considered an insult, doea the word have a specific meaning (Like "Eskimo" meening "raw meat eater" in a Cree dialect), and are all Sami offended by the name Lapp. Btw, why do I want to know this? Because I am to write an article on the Sami and their language on the Limburgic Wikipedia. Caesarion 10:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It means "patch", as in "bums in patched clothes". If someone uses the term, he's simply ignorant of this. --Vuo 11:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Lapp doesn't mean anything. In Norwegian, lapp also means "patch" or "piece of paper", but I suspect the two have nothing to do with each other (except in wordplays...for instance the president of the Sami parliament was humorously called "laptop"). The term "lapp" is NEVER used in Norwegian, except by very ignorant people, or if they want to offend. If say the prime minister would use the word, it would be a scandal. However, some Norwegians and Sami use the word Lapp in English, because they don't know the word Sami is the correct one in English too. That's why you still hear the word used at times.

Derogatory or not? That is in the ear of the listener. It has been used as such, though, and thus got a bad sound to it. That the word also means "patch" of course has nothing to do with it, it is just a coincidence. "Sami" do doubt is more politically correct, but lots of people in Sweden say "lapp" and means absolutely nothing bad at all. It might be more controversial in Norway. /Habj 23:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "Lapp" is from Finnish where it means something like distant or living in a total wilderness. In its original form and meaning in Finnish the word can be seen as degorating. Tuohirulla 17:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The blade of a sword has and edge and a flat side. In Finnish this flat side is called "lappea" meaning the same thing than Lapp and Lapland. Its something outside the main area.Tuohirulla 17:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that the word "Lapp" comes from this Finnish word, is it a coincidence, or has this meaning come about later?

I mean that this international word "Lapp" comes from a Finnish word. Tuohirulla 20:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC). S

Saying Lapp is REALLY bad in Norway, where more than half the Sami live. Skip the word, and change to Sami. After all, half the countries in Africa have changed names over the last century, as has a number of different people. After all, we don't talk about bushmen and hottentotts anymore.

I'm a Norwegian, and I can't really say that "Lapp" is a derogatery term here, just a bit old-fashioned really. "Same" simply rolls better off the tongue, so it's more used, but I've heard "Lapper" and never heard anyone refer to it as offensive. "Lappland" is even printed on the map (at least until recently). But I do agree that the most common term is "Same" (and therefore "Sami" ?)

193.216.164.123 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Norwegian Sami, and if some Norwegian calls me a "Lapp", I'll assume the person is either very hostile or simply extremely old-fashioned and ignorant. All depending on the manner in which it is said. Among Sami, however, the word can be used somewhat self-ironically. I'm under the impression that in Sweden and Finland, "Lapp/Lappi" is still widely used, though considered offensive by the Swedish Sami. In Russia, the related word "Lopar'" is considered very old-fashioned and "Saam" is applied instead (the double "a" is there to avoid confusion: The Russian word "sam" means "self"). I don't know if "Lopar'" is deemed offensive by Russian Sami. There are more efficient words used for insulting Sami in Russia (like "Chukcha") so there isn't any use at all for "Lopar'".

Anyway, "Sami" is the chosen form of our public, representative institutions. It derives from our languages, and is in no way derogatory. So stick with it.

--Misha bb 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid

Are Sami people of Mongoloid stock as the Inuits or are they similar to their Finnish and Scandinavian cousins? Meursault2004 08:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither. They are European, but no direct genetic link has been established with any other European population; the DNA pattern is unique. The physical characteristics are European as well. There is no significant "Mongoloid" influence. --Vuo 23:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do mean 'neither'? They are indeed related to Finns, Karelians, and Estonians, aren't they?ExRat

No, they aren't. Language isn't the same as genetic origin. --Vuo 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sami, Karelians and Estonians are in fact genetically related. Tatiana Zerjal et.al.(2001) conclude that it is striking that the Y-chromosomes of the Sami are very similar to those of the Estonians (Genetic map) and distinct from most southern Swedes and Finns, but there might be exceptions (e.g. in Skåne where Kittles et.al.1999 probably have found a genetic pattern identical with the Sami mtDNA). There are most likely different genetic histories and migration patterns for Sami men and women. Sami mtDNA patterns are truly unique and differs from other European lineages with specific motifs, like "The Sami motif" - U5b1. Finns and Sami people are also genetic related[2][3] (Aprerogative 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

The Sami people are definitively both Scandinavian and Nordic. A commonly occurring mistake and misleading idea and discourse is to contrast or negate the Sami people with the Nordic or the Scandinavian (Meursault2004 mentioned their Scandinavian cousins). New genetic research indicates that the Sami people and their ancestors have populated the Scandinavian Peninsula for thousands of years (probably longer than other groups of people) and all countries populated by the Sami people belong to the Nordic countries except for Russia. aprerogative 28 January 2006 (UTC).

A comment to Vuo 26 Jun 2005: The Sami people do undeniably have unique DNA patterns with several population specific mutations. The unique DNA pattern is best explained as consequence of thousands of years of isolation in the northwestern corner of Europe, with minimal immigration and emigration from the Sami and their ancestors’ areas. Reasons for the isolation may be many e.g. climate, language differences and more recent social factors as education and racism. Other groups e.g. Icelandic, Sardinians, the Basques (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993) and the Finnsare also genetically considered to be European outliers, much because of the same reasons. Being a genetic outlier does not mean that the cited groups of people and the Saami have no genetic link to the rest of Europe. This model of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1994) roughly shows what genetic populations in Europe the Saami belong to: The History and Geography of Human Genesand Genetics and the population history of Europe. aprerogative 28 January 2006(UTC).

Thanks, hmm that is interesting. But according to the article Mongoloid, many Sami do have what many people would call slanted eyes:

Epicanthal folds and oblique palpebral fissures that create almond-shaped eyes are common among most Mongoloid individuals, though their occurence among Amerindians is almost absent, except for in the west coast and the far north. The presence of epicanthal folds is normal in people of many, though not all, groups of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, and is also present to some degree among the Sami people of northern Scandinavia. This fold covers and appears to lower the inner corners of the eyes, creating the appearance of "slanted eyes." It is commonly known amongst Asians as "single-eyelids", as opposed to "double eyelids". The occurrence of the epicanthic fold is believed to be an evolutionary defense against both the extreme cold as well as the extreme light the occurs in the Eurasian arctic and far north. -- Meursault2004 28 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. First, the rest of the physical features are distinctively European, and the epicanthal fold is by no means universal among the Sami. Second, the evidence I'm referring to is DNA. Major physical features may be changed by a single random mutation, but major DNA chunks cannot. The epicanthal fold is found in several non-Asian populations, because it develops following some process in the developmental anatomy. There is even a disease (Down syndrome) that causes an epichantal fold, so it can't be hereditary only. Also, all peoples in the region have some (1.5%) Mongoloid influence, so finding a single Asian physical feature or gene passed along in an isolated population doesn't prove a dominant Asian ancestry. For example, there are genes (TATC allele) that are shared by the Sami and the Asians; problem is, that they are found in the Nordic Finns, too. --Vuo 28 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

OK I now understand more about the Sami. Thanks again for the info. Meursault2004 28 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)

A comment on Vuo's message from aprerogative 18:00, 19 Jul 2005(UTC) :

The growing evidence of mother linked mtDNA studies show that 98% of the Sami people’s haplogroups belong to the European gene pool (Comas D et.al. (Eur J Hum Genet 1999): Tambets K; Rootsi S; Kivisild T; Help H; Serk P; et al. (American H Hum genetics, 2004): Achilli et.al. (American J Hum genetics, 2005)). These and other studies support the Franco Cantabrian glacial refugium theory which postulates that the Sami people migrated from areas in northwestern Spain via one main eastern European route and a significant smaller one along the ice edge from western Europe. Tambets et.al did not find that there have been a significant gene flow from the Nenets and the Samoyed people of Siberia to the Sami areas, but they mention findings which show that over 50% of the Sami father linked Y-chromosomes share a TatC allele (haplogroup N3) with Siberian and Finnish people. It is hypothesized that these N3 genetic links that is shared with the Siberian people have reached the Sami via Eastern European ancestors. Together with N3, the haplogroup R1 makes up almost 60% of the Y-chromosomal pool of the Sami, while R1b and I make up 33%. R1a, R1b and I are linked to the western European gene pool.

The Sami ancestors of northward migrating European groups may have mixed with Siberian groups that had followed the reindeers and settled along the ice free coast line of the pre-glacial Scandinavian peninsula. The ice melted both from the south and northwards as well as southwestwards from the Kola peninsula (Russia). There are archeological supports for very early migration and settlements (10.000 years old) from the northeast(Russian/Siberian) areas to the coastal areas of Finnmark County in Norway.

More studies need to be conducted before the Siberian ancestries among the Sami people can be ruled out. Larger samples from all Siberian as well as all Sami groups must be studied. Even if many new studies support that the Sami people dominantly belong to the European gene pool, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the Asian features (as for instance the epicanthic fold) are not of Siberian origins. It is important to be cautious about concluding

substantially from too few studies, relatively small samples and from studies conducted in limited geographical areas of the Sami.

This is basically the same as I wrote. If the Sami are Mongoloid, then also all French are Arabs and all Russians are Chinese. --Vuo 09:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Vuo|Vuo what you said makes no sense. French, Arabs, and Russians are not considered races of people. And for the most part, Russians, French, and Arabs belong to the same race while chinese belong to a seperate race. The fact that Russsians are not arab has no significance in proving whether or not the Sami's belong to the mongoloid race or otherwise.

The Sami language is believed to have originated on the siberian side of the ural mountains. The predominant speakers of Uralic languages are mongoloid. Therefore the speakers of proto-uralic most likely were also mongoloid. The Sami are believed to have migrated thousands of years ago to modern day scandinavia and finland. No one knows if they encoutered caucasoids along the way and these people mixed into the gene pool and there was further mixing while in present day finland and scandinavia so much to the fact where much to the point where the Sami were nearly racially assimilated with other nother europeans... This is what seems the most plausible to me. The fact that some Sami stil exhibit mongoloid caracteristic and were thought to have originated in a place where other mongoloids, who were not exposed to a great flux of the indo european gene pool, originated, points very strongly to the belief that the ancient sami people were mongoloids, or at the least there was very strong mongoloid presence within the sami population. The Sami bloodline today is most likely drained of this and is overwhelming caucasoid and similar to that of their closest neighbors. 69.209.143.178 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) anon

You probably made that up mostly. Uralic languages, like Indo-European languages, are spoken by more than one "race". The spread of the Uralic languages appears more like an ecological boundary than the adventures of a single people, and no single "originally" Uralic-speaking people has been identified. Predominantly Uralic speakers are North or East European; some Asians speak Uralic languages too, but these represent the extreme south and east of the distribution. --Vuo 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are old racial categorizations still used? - - Research has demonstrated that they are overly static, limited, erroneous and often overlook individual differences within a particular ethnic group of people. The mutual exclusive typological descriptions of human races such as e.g. Mongoloid and Caucasoid are not able to capture the genetic continuity and genetic similarities of modern humans. Asian and Eurasian are better terms and Delghandi et.al.(1998) have shown that about 5 % of mother-linked DNA of the Sami people are related to the Asian-Siberian gene pool. aprerogative 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I started this discussion and I had no idea that this would start a long and lengthy discussion! Meursault2004 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Despite all the claims above, the fact remains that the Sami retain large influences in both a genetic and physical sense of some Asian/Mongoloid origins. User: Vuo seems to disagree and state that they are predominantly caucasoid and are "nordic". Obviously the Sami do have Caucasian elements but they are quite distinct from other indigenous European peoples who are purely caucasoid and the Sami are definitely not "nordic" in the same sense as say the Swedes, Danes or Norwegians. Pretty much all of the peoples of Eastern Europe (i.e. from Lapland all the way south to Turkey and West to Poland and the Czech Republic) have some degree of Asian/Mongoloid influence and this generally decreases in Europe the further west and south one moves. The Sami obviously aren't mongoloid in the same sense as Koreans or Chinese, but they do retain strong elements as do the other Finnic peoples. Vuo's claim that "if the Sami are Mongoloid, then the French, Arabs and Russians are Chinese" is ridiculous and the Sami could indeed be considered "mongoloid" if compared to the French who have pretty much no such elements. The Arabs are a huge heterogenous and ambiguous group consisting of several ethnicities and peoples so their racial characteristics vary greatly. If one is speaking of the original Arabs of the Arabian peninsula, they are Mediterranean Caucasians and have very little or no Mongoloid elements. The Russians, as stated before, are like all Eastern European peoples and have varying degrees of Mongoloid/Asian influence.

I believe there are some political implications that need to be taken into account here. The Sami people's claims regarding land rights etc in the traditional Sami territories are primarily based on their status as an indigenous people. Consequently, it would certainly be in the interest of the groups who oppose the Sami's claims to try and disprove that they constitute a separate ethnic category. For every scientist who claims that there is no ethnic difference between the Sami and the Scandinavian/Finnish peoples, there is another one who can make convincing arguments to the effect that they are indeed a separate group. Jonas Liljeström 11:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot wade through all that all text, but if the intent of the original question was simply "do Sami look Asian?" then the answer is no. Or at least, in mid-north Sweden, there is no easy way to tell them apart from "plain Swedes". Old anthropological photos, like the one in the article, can be misleading, either because of bias ("let's find a really flat-faced, wrinkled-up old geezer for the book") or because the people in the pictures led a very different life from ours (outdoors, different diet ...) JöG 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

About the suppossedly Mongolness of the Sami people I refer to Niskanen 2002 article reference in the article. Niskanen concludes that the Saami population is not more Mongoloid than the average European population. Even the Komi and Mari population just west of the Urals are antropologically Europeans. I quote from Niskanens article: "The Baltic-Finns and, as a surprise to many people, also the Saami exhibit clearly North European phenotypes. Epicanthic eyefolds, flat faces, coarse straight hair, and other Mongoloid traits are not encountered among them more frequently than among other Europeans". Further "Strong cheekbones and flaring zygomatic arches of many Finno- Ugrians, commonly and erroneously assumed to be Mongoloid features, are actually inherited from European Cro-Magnons". I really hope the 200 year old claim of Friedrich Blumenbach will finally be put to the grave!

Organisation

* s/he simply considers her/himself to be Sami (valid in Finland only)

I removed the text above, because as far as I know, it is not true. I am Finnish and i can not have legal sami status by just deciding to be sami. If i want to turn into sami i dont have to look like sami, own reindeers or wear sami clothes but i have to prove that i have sami ancestors in past. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.24.237.16) --Hottentot

In Finland you have to prove your sami ancestors from citizen records made by churches for centuries. If this record says about an ancient person that s/he was a "fishing lapp" or "reindeer lapp" or other kind of "lapp" then s/he is considered a saami ancestor. Tuohirulla 17:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sami status

Post originally made at talk:Swedish people.

Alright, I see what you're saying now. You can change it back any time. I have a different question, however. Since you're Swedish, you probably would know this: what's the situation right now with the Sami people of Sweden? Are there any ethnic Swedish settlers migrating to Lapland? Are the Sami simply being absorbed into Swedish mainstream life or are there programs for them to retain their languages culture? --Khoikhoi 06:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Sami question, but I know that there aren't too many Swedes settling in the north right now. Generally, most Swedish rural areas are experiencing a population stagnation or even a decrease. This is because a lot of people (especially the young) are moving to the major urban areas for various reasons. What I know about the status of Sami in Sweden is that it's problematic, but not because of active supression or lack of recognition of them as a minority. A lot of it has to do with legal battles over the right to keep land for reindeer pasture and trying to avoid complete assimilation.

Otherwise, I think this article covers a lot of the details that can answer your questions.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 (UTC)

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 • contribs) 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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 > [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] . 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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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.

height?

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