Talk:Finnic mythologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

merger[edit]

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)

You can not compare Slavic or Altaic mythology with Fenno-Volgaic (or "Finnic") mythologies, because Slavic mythology for example has lots in common; same or similar myths and gods, agriculture-based mythology, somehow similar history and culture. Fenno-Volgaic languages have separated a lot earlier from each other than Slavic languages, and during that time they have loosely scattered in wide areas, without even knownledge about or contact with each other, developed very much different ways of life (hunter-gathered, pastoralist, agricultural). Slavs emerged and separated later, they have always been living quite close to other Slavs, slavic peoples have known each other and always exchanged a lot of culture with each other.
People can, however compare Slavic, Germanic or Altaic mythology with Baltic-Finnic mythology, because Baltic Finns are geographically compact group with shared agricultural heritage, gods, myths, stories, etc.Tuohirulla puhu 19:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but you just don't make any sense. A minute ago you were readily suggesting to rename the article into Finno-Ugric mythologies that by contradicting your current arguments did put together even more distinct mythologies than the Finnic group inside of it. And now you'd like to narrow it down again by concentrating on Baltic-Finnic mythology only?
Everything related is spelled out in the article according to the sources so there is no need to go on with those discussion loops on this talk page. In case you do have anything to add, please put it into the article according to any WP:RS you can come up with.--Termer (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but you did not get it again. I was arguing to user dab about in which cases it is reasonable to use plural and in which cases it is reasonable to use singular in the names of the articles. My argument was, that there is no point to use singular form in the term "Finno-Ugric mythologies", but there might be a point to use singular form in the term "Baltic-Finnic mythology", like there is a reason to use singular form in the term "Slavic mythology". It was not pro or contra- argument about which articles there should exist.
My arguments about this article are still the same; that an article "Finnic mythology", defined and named like it presently is, is not acceptable material to Wikipedia, and my reasoning and requests of sources and explanations, that you have not provided, are still there. Tuohirulla puhu 21:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is better use the right term so I moved it to Finno-Ugric mythologies. Please don't touch it unless you have something new to say.--Ufinne (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your activity is reasoned in these circumstances, in which the two proponents of other name and version ignore, ridicule and look down on large parts of serious critic that is directed to "their version". They possibly rely on that they could "win" their version with a threat of an edit war or goint into it, therefore thinking that conversation is not necessary. Tuohirulla puhu 22:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You got one thing right Tuohirulla, I'm not getting it what are you guys up to. By saying that the finnic mythologies are too distinct to have it included in one article that it should be about Baltic Finnic only, and then again, broadening the scope to even wider variety of mythologies by including the ugrians? There is one thing for sure though, if you think that editwarring the title is an answer, you got it all wrong.--Termer (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There can be several articles about different "scopes", I have not argued against that. I am willing to accept both of the two articles: Baltic-Finnic mythology and Finno-Ugric mythologies, as far as their text is sourced and relevant. However, all articles in Wikipedia must be based on sources and fill the other standards, therefore making your versions of this article unacceptable. Tuohirulla puhu 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I have already answered to this at 18:34, 28 October 2008 [7]. The only thing to add perhaps to comment the new title that's not in sync with the content any more would be that the plural form "Finno-Ugric mythologies" is rarely used in English, it gives 15 returns at google books versus the more common form of the term "Finno-Ugric mythology" that gives you 181 returns at google books.--Termer (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a misinterpretation of a google books search. Each one of the Finno-Ugric mythologies is a Finno-Ugric mythology. For example Estonian mythology is a Finno-Ugric mythology. In this context the singular exists in the literature, and only rarely as a collective term. It seems not obvious to me what you are up to. If you demand an irregular name (like a singular as a collective term), it is up to you to convince the other people, to create a consensus, to find a source etc. Before that there should be no question that the article is named in the regular way. 62.216.124.115 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in case you guys up there are not aware of that anything Finno-Ugric is dividid into Finnic and Ugric subgroups in English languae including Finnic mythology and "Ob-Ugric mythology that make up Finno-Ugric mythology, you should at least try to get the basic grammar right if you want to speak about any "mythologies consists" [8],[9]. It's a mythology that consists, mythologies do consist of things, And it's only a something of mythologies that may consists of anything --Termer (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Moralia in Job

The relation between Baltic-Finnic and Sami mythologies[edit]

This section is to talk about the relations between Baltic-Finnic and Sami mythologies, aiming to make the article better. Please talk about other subjects in other sections!

Shamanism[edit]

Shamanism is a key element in Sami mythology, but there are only a few traces of shamanism amongst the Baltic Finns. The Finnish "tietäjä", a wise person and often a healer, is often translated to English as "shaman" (in the lack of a better term), but in Finnish study these terms are separate. Many who compare Finnish culture to "true" shamanistic cultures have pointed out the fact that there are no documents about Finnish or Karelian shaman drums. Shaman drum is a key element in shamanism, a tool to reach trance, a state of consciousness in which shamanistic rituals are performed.

Martti Haavio, one of the most prominent figures in the study of Finnish mythology, has found only one possible historic document about the actual practice of Baltic Finnic shamanism (Suomalainen mytologia 1967). This is a report made around 1650s by a priest about pagan paractices in Kemi-Lapland. The priest writes to his colleagues that witches who live in cottages sometimes sing and fall on ground to "see". Haavio interprets these withces as Karelians and their activity as shamanistic trance; seeing the spirit world. There is also one mentioning from year 1938 that one fine type of drums from Lapland has no Sami name, but a Finnish name only. Haavio interprets this as a possible evidence that there might have been Finnish shaman drums. However the year 1938 was a bit too late to find ancient features of Finnish folk culture, that had already been modernizer. But it was a good time for politically motivated claims.

Anna-Leena Siikala, the most prominent "proponent" of Finnish shamanism, also admits that Finnish mythology and culture are not historically known to have been truly shamanistic, but she thinks the culture of the ancestors of Finns has been closer to real shamanism at some (unspecified?) era. Her great book "Suomalainen shamanismi" ("Finnish shamanism", 1996) has a suggestive name, but its not trying to "proof" that Finnish mythology was shamanistic. The book searches traces of shamanism in Finnish mythology.

I don't know much about the state of affairs of possible shamanism amongst the Estonians. Maybe somebody else could tell more about that?

New revolutionary information is always welcome, but unless such emerges, I suggest that we make a clear separation between Sami and Baltic-Finnic mythologies, at least in this very important part. Maybe we should not confuse the reader by talking about anything "Finno-Lappic" in the field of mythology, unless we clearly specify the "Finno-Lappic" feature that we are currently talking about. 193.65.112.51 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The question has been addressed several times on this talk page. But since you brought it up again, "Finnish Shamanism" could definitely use some more attention in the article since there are plenty of sources available in English that look into the subject. Now, regarding the new title, since it has changed back to Finno-Ugrig Mythologies once again, the editors responsible for changing the title would need to add the Og-Ugric and Ugric mythologies to the article, otherwise the title change is not justified and needs to be rolled back according to the content.--Termer (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on the subject of this thread. 193.65.112.51 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'm willing to update the Finnish section with Finnish Shamanism in utmost detail as soon as I can. Since finland.com claims that The ancient Finnish magicians and shamans were famous for their skills it seems like an important subject. But first things first since Finnish Shamanism has secondary importance at the moment. those who have been advocating the inclusion of Ob-Ugric mythology in here would need to help out with updating the article according to their subject of interest so that the content would mach the title.--Termer (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You seem once again to ignore the most concrete, ground level proof and evidence for the sake of an existence of claims and arguments. There are claims and agruments for almost anything, and its important to evaluate and compare the trustfullness and relevancy of different claims. There are surely many who wants to claim that there was a strong historic culture of Finnish shamanism. For example the page you mention now is trying to advertise Finland for tourism. Of course such page wants to create an image of Finland as exotic as possible. Many others are politically or religiously motivated; motivations including Greater Finland, Finske Fare, Germanic supremacy and Finnish Neo-Paganism. The fact only is that there is an existence of some sort of traces of shamanism in Finnish mythology, and a very few uncertain historic documents. There has been shamanism amongst the ancestors of Finns, as there has been shamanism amongst the ancestors of every people. We were all hunter-gatherers at some point of the past. For example one form or trace of Norse shamanism was Seid [10], which name is related to Sami sieidi tradition. But should we talk about Norse-Lappic mythology because of that and many other relations between Sami and Norse myths? I dont think so. Some sort of traces of shamanism are almost universal in traditional cultures. These traces does not justify to call the most of the cultures of world as shamanistic cultures. Tuohirulla puhu 09:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
there has been shamanism amongst the ancestors of every people. We were all hunter-gatherers at some point of the past., exactly, so why do you put so much effort into explaining such things at this talk page? he Sami were hunters longer than the Finns, therefore the Sami maintained shamanistic features longer than the Finns. This is all grade school stuff and doesn't need to be explained over and over again. And thanks for updating the article by including the Ugrians. Now if someone could also start up a chapter about them we can put this behind us and move on. The only thing "Finno-Ugric mythologies" as a title still sounds weird in English, it should be called Finno-Ugric mythology.--Termer (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
An entity called Finno-Ugric mythology does not exist, so I cannot understand how the plural form is weird. There are several Finno-Ugrian peoples and several Finno-Ugrian mythologies, only distantly related with each other.--130.234.68.222 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The question has been addressed several times, please read the talk page! Finno-Ugric mythology like "Finnic mythology" are common forms used in English. It doesn't mean it contains a single mythology. OK! The form "Finno-Ugric mythologies" is used in English if you'd talk about a something of Finno-Ugric mythologies.--Termer (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Chapters about individual mythologies[edit]

And thanks for updating the article by including the Ugrians. Now if someone could also start up a chapter about them we can put this behind us and move on.

I would like to see more opinions on this, but I think the present chapters about the different mythologies (Finnish, Estonian, Sami, etc.) seem unnecessarily large. These chapters should be introductory-like, a lot more compact than now. Mainly they should tell some overall features, and direct the reader to more detailed articles. There are so many Fenno-Ugric mythologies that if we make this long presentation about each one, the article would be a way too big.
There is also a problem of double information, if the same stuff is here and in another article. Tuohirulla puhu 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

List of sami gods[edit]

There have been a list of the different gods and godesses in the Sami religion here on wiki. I can't find it now. Have it been deleted? So sad, if this is true.--85.226.44.74 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It was remowed, with several other, here: [[11]]. Why? It was information.It is nowere on wiki now. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Estonian

   Main article: Estonian deities
   * Peko - god of fertility, crops and brewing
   * Pikne (lightning) - god of thunder
   * Tharapita - god of war, also known as Taara
   * Vanemuine (the ancient one) - god of music (possibly a spurious later development)
   * Uku - superior god
   * Ilmarine - smithgod

Finnish

   Main article: Finnish deities

There are very few written documents about old Finnish religions; also the names of deities and practices of worship changed from place to place. The following is a summary of the most important and most widely worshipped deities.

   * Ahti (or Ahto) - god of streams, lakes and sea
   * Loviatar - One of Tuoni's daughters. Goddess of pain.
   * Mielikki - Tapio's wife, the Goddess of forests
   * Otso - son of a god, king of the forest, whose carnal form is the bear
   * Pekko (or Peko) - God/dess (the actual gender is obscure) of fields and agriculture
   * Perkele - god of thunder (originally a Lithuanian deity of thunder, Perkunas; adopted into Finnish tradition at a late date)
   * Rauni - Ukko's wife, Goddess of fertility
   * Tapio - god of forest and wild animals
   * Tuonetar - The wife of Tuoni
   * Tuoni - god of the underworld
   * Ukko - god of heaven and thunder, the over-god. same as Jumala, later the Christian God.

Sami

   * Aske or Manna - The god of the Moon.
   * Atja - The god of thunder, also called Bajanolmmai, Dierpmis or Hovrengalles, which means "Thor- man".
   * Beaivi or Biejje - The great Goddess of the Sun, mother of human kind.
   * Bieggagallis - The god of the storms, father of human kind, consort of Beaivi.
   * Bieggolman - God of the summer winds.
   * Biegkegaellies - God of the winter winds.
   * Biejjenniejte - Goddess of healing and medicine; her name means "Daughter of the Sun" or "Maiden of the Sun", and she was especially helpful against sicknesses caused by her mother, the sun.
   * Jabbmeaaakka - Goddess of death and queen of the underworld and the kingdom of death.
   * Jipmel - "God"; possibly this was a late name of the Christian god, but it could also have been a name to include all good deities.
   * Juoksahkka - The protecter and guardian of children; "The woman with an arrow".
   * Lieaibolmmai - God of the hunt, the god of adult men.
   * Maadteraahka - Mother of the tribe, Goddess of women and children, she who gives humans their body; women belonged to her, and boys belonged to her until they were declared men. Maadteraahka is popular among modern sami feminists.
   * Maadteraajja - The father of the tribe, husband of Maadteraahka; while his wife gives humans their body, he gives them their soul; and thus, they are born.
   * Mubpienålmaj - "The evil one"; possibly the Christian god of evil, but also a name that included all the evil deities.
   * Oksaahka - The former of the fetus; she shaped the fietus in the mother's womb and gave humans their gender. She was the sister of Juoksahka.
   * Raedie or Väraldarade - The main god, the great creator ot the world; he was, however, passive, some say even sleeping, and not very included in active religion.
   * Raedieahkka - Wife of Raedie.
   * Rana Niejta - Daughter of Raedie. "Rana" was a popular name of Sami girls.
   * Raediengiedte - Son of Raedie.
   * Ruohtta - The god of sicknesses and therefore also a death-god. He was depicted riding on a horse.
   * Saaraahka - The Goddess of fertility, menstruation, love, sexuality, pregnancy and childbirth. Saaraahka was the most important female god; she is sometimes sister of Juoksahka and Oksaahka, sometimes they are a trinity of the same Goddess.
   * Stallon - The feared giant of the woods.
   * Tjaetsieålmaj - The men of water.

All of the above was remowed! Why? The article of the sami was first in a "List-article", List of Sami gods, then is was incorporated into this article, and then deleted because it was a list! No matter how you look at it, this is important information which is no longer avilable at wiki. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The only valid reason why those facts may have been removed from the article is because there seems to be no sources provided whatsoever. Therefore anybody may remove it any time. The list of gods should have secondary published sources provided and then it can be restored in the article. Simply because it's a list of gods, that's not a reason good enough to remove anything from an article.--Termer (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Allright, I understand. I think I can help to assist you with that, at least when it comes to the Sami deities. When that list was still in its own article, it had several sources. When that article was incoprorated whit this, the sources was also taken here. They follow below:

  1. Herman Hofberg, "Lapparnas Hednatro" (The Pagan belief of the Sami)
  2. Uno Holmberg, "Lapparnas religion" (The faith of the Sami)
  3. Rafael Karsten, " Samefolkets religion" (The Sami religion)
  4. Edgar Reuteskiöld, " De nordiska samernas religion" (The religion of the Northern Sami)

These (swedish) sources above verify the list of Sami gods and godesses. Perhaps this will help. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor who remowed the lists said nothing of sources. The reason given for the remowal was this: great edits, lists removed, since this is not a list but an article. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll just restore the sections for now. later perhaps all the gods could be better added to relevant articles, the Sami gods to Sami shamanism etc. since this has turned into a general article about Finno-Ugric mythologies, listing all gods of all the people here would be perhaps turn out getting too much into details in such a general article. and therefore it might be more relevant to list it in the main articles later on. But lets see...for now the article is far from being too long, and there is no point of creating a separate list of lets say Sami gods.--Termer (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Taking a second look, since the Estonian and Finnish gods are already listed in relevant main articles, and duplicating some of them over here doesn't really make sense, it would work better if the Sami gods would also be listed in the main article Sami shamanism I think, so I'll do that instead.--Termer (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Well done, thank you very much! One could also add, of course, that the names of the deities are spelled in different ways, although they are always similar and the gods themselwes are always the same.--85.226.44.74 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

reverted move (2nd time)[edit]

I've been finding a lot of articles based on reified linguistic constructs that are pure fiction mascarading as fact, such as "Altaic mythology" and "Finno-Ugric mythology". Until mythologists demonstrate that there is such a thing, I suggest we resist the temptation of classifying mythology based on the languages people speak. The two do not necessarily have anything to do with each other: Cultural contact is just as important as linguistic transmission. kwami (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well both Finnic mythology you reverted back to and "Finno-Ugric Mythology are valid subjects and both classifications are based on the languages people speak. Therefore nothing that you have said above makes much sense I'm afraid.--Termer (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Finnic peoples may or may not have a defined mythology, I don't know. But the Finnic and Ugric peoples have nothing in common that they do not share with neighboring peoples, except that linguists figured out their languages are related. That has nothing to do with mythology. If a common mythology could be reconstructed, that would be fascinating, but that's not what this article is about. It would be like linguists accepting that the Basques and North Caucasians speak related languages, and someone then creating a "Vasco-Caucasian mythology" article. How would that be a credible concept? kwami (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, kwami I'm sorry to remind you that personal opinions and ideas are irrelevant on Wikipedia , therefore in case you do have any WP:RS that say anything different than the 220 books available at google books that define the Finno-Ugric Mythology...please, do not hesitate to cite the source that defines the subject according to your ideas.--Termer (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
PS. I'm not contesting your reverted move. Like already said, both Finnic and Finno-Ugric mythology are valid subjects discussed in hundreds of published sources. The only difference, the scope of Finno-Ugric would be much broader than Finnic. And since the scope of the article only covered Finnic, your revert is fine by me.--Termer (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My problem is with taking linguistic constructs to justify claims that are not supported by the linguistic evidence, and which have no other evidence to justify them either. I seriously doubt that anyone has demonstrated a Uralic or Finno-Ugric culture that existed apart from "Altaic" (same problem) or Siberian culture in general. Like homeopathic medicine, it's hard to find serious critical scholarship. Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong. kwami (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take your time and read through one of those 220 books to find out what is the subject(s) all about and then we can continue this discussion.--Termer (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Most of that stuff is from the 1920s, or quoting stuff from the 1920s. I'll see what else I can find. I've skimmed a couple others online, and they never define what the phrase means, or present a coherent account. It's just 'people who happen to speak languages which our linguist colleagues tell us are related, so we'll refer to them with this fancy name, but it doesn't actually mean anything.' Blench and Spriggs have some interesting things to say, but it's all in the sense of language reconstruction and what that can tell us about history, not about any contemporary group of peoples. kwami (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Who has said that Finnic or Finno Ugric Mythology has anything to do with any contemporary group of peoples? People in Europe do not believe in Spiderman or Godzilla, nor that the world was born from an egg. So again, I have no idea what are you talking about?--Termer (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it about then? Finnic peoples have their mythologies; is there anything in the mythologies themselves that makes them a unit? Or are they just assumed to be a unit, with no evidence, because their believers speak/spoke related languages? It would be different it 'Finnic mythology' were recovered from linguistic reconstruction, but that doesn't appear to be the case. kwami (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh, luckily this question has been addressed already at the time when there was edit warring back to Finno-Ugric myhology. I couldn't put it better myself than dab above 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".
Again, I have nothing else to add than both Finnic mythology you reverted back to and "Finno-Ugric Mythology are valid subjects. Please familiarize yourself with the subject(s) in case you wish to contribute constructively. thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

indeed, kwami, cut it out please. You are ever so welcome to evolve these articles into something more substantial. Until that day, we should keep them under the current organization for purely pragmatic reasons. According to kwami, it is equally preposterous to talk about a "single" Greek or Norse mythology, because obviously every town and village, and every successive generation will have their own mythology without any fundamental "unity". --dab (𒁳) 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said, Dab, or at least take the time to read it first. The Norse and Greek mythologies are coherent concepts. Their existence does not depend on the validity of a linguistic classification: If one of the Greek city-states that shared it mythology with its neighbors turned out to have spoken a non-European language, we wouldn't suddenly reclassify the Greek myths depending on which version came from which city. However, the Finnic and Ugric mythologies have nothing in common they do not share with other Eurasian peoples. The concept does not exist apart from the linguistic theory of Finno-Ugric, and without linguistics, mythologists would never have posited such a thing. If someone can write an article about the mythology of the proto-Finno-Ugric people, that would be a wonderful contribution to the encyclopedia. But to simply lump the pre-Christian mythologies of the modern Finnic and Ugric peoples together as if they formed a coherent whole apart from their neighbors is an abuse of the linguistic proposals. kwami (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Again kwami, WP talk pages are not a place to publish your own WP:OR and opinions on the subject. In case you are aware of any alternative perspectives published in secondary sources that say anything different than the sources attached to this discussion page and the article, please do not hesitate to bring such sources forward so that any possible alternative perspectives could be added into the related articles.--Termer (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
We're talking about fringe, not OR. kwami (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article, and the whole "Finnic"-issue is distorted due to unequal levels of activism between the editors. Just one active editor with outdated information and sources stemming from 1920s and before has made, kept up and ruled over these articles about non-existing "Finnic" ethnicity, for years. Some of this false information has been copied to other language Wikipedias and even outside Wikipedia, creating circulating factoids, that may later be used as sources. "Finnic" pseudoethnicity and its culture has been re-constructed here on Wikipedia after such ideas were abandoned in the real world during the first half of 20th century. There might not be sources refuting that sort of information that no academic research on the subject takes seriously. Existence and continuous use of words like "Finnic peoples" and "Finnic mythology" does not prove those things exist as presented in any version of the articles accepted by user Termer. This is a serious and chronic problem which needs to be intervened by people with expertise and time. Tuohirulla puhu 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would support paring this down to a description of what sets Finnic mythologies apart from their neighbors, plus a historical description of the pseudoscientific aspects of it and a "See also" set of links to individual articles. The main section should be sourceable with refs from the last 20–30 years. Since you appear to be more knowledgeable about this than I am, would you care to take a crack at it? — kwami (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • sources stemming from 1920s? European Mythology published by Oxford University Press that discusses finnic mythologies is from 2003.
  • "Finnic" pseudoethnicity? Who has claimed Finnic is an ethnicity? Finnic is a language group not an ethnicity.

How different scholars have subcategorized Finnic languages [12] has been for some reason removed from wikipedia. Well, all of it is still available in The Uralic language family: facts, myths and statistics by Angela Marcantonio - 2002. Some confusion may come however from the fact that in Finland "Finnic" is most often referred to as Baltic-Finnic only like The Finnic languages by Johanna Laakso puts it. For some reason in Finland they tend to exclude the Volga-Finnic languages from the Finnic group and put them under general Finno-Ugric, suggseting like they're more ugric than finnic I guess. I think it's a political not scientific issue. Like in Hungary some want to question the entire "Finno-Ugric theory" in order not to be associated with the "primitive Siberian peoples", in Finland some attempt to distance themselves from the Sami and it seems from the Volga Finns as well. Well, as long as Oxford University Press has published in 2003 a chapter on Finnic mythologies and included Volga Finns, Baltic Finns, Permians, and Sami under it, I see no reason why shouldn't wikpiedia.--Termer (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In this context ehnicity also means historic tribes. As it is said here many times already, these articles about "Finnics" -in the way you have modified and made them- clearly suggest that there is this Finnic group with a lot more ties than just linquistic ties. In these articles you have made Finnics to look like an ethnic supergroup with its own history, ancestry, genetics and culture, like "germanics" or "slavics". However Finnic peoples (of your definition) is not such a group but a linquistic group of languages (even though Finnics if defined as Baltic Finns, a definition you don't accept, may be comparable to germanics and slavics). In the talk pages you nominally accept that this group is only linquistic, but in practice you add the features of ethnic supergroup (genes, culture, common history, mythology etc) in the articles. Most of the text of your versions focus on these features totally irrelevant to a linquistic group defined by the scientists. Why is this information on your versions, if this group is only linquistic?
Your claims about political motivations of other editors -and of the Finns- are outrageous, ridiculous insults, and against the code of Wikipedia. I have nothing against Lapps, Bantu, Indonesian, Aztec or any ethnic group, and I can still accept the fact that I dont belong to the same ethnic supergoups with them, supergroups comparable to "slavics" or "germanics". What you claim actually implies that to like or respect people you must be specially related to them. I dont think in such absurd way, nor the majority of the Finns. I happen to love and respect Sami people, language and culture, I consider them absolutely valuable to my country and the world, and I can still recognize the fact that their shamanistic hunter gatherer mythology was not a specially close relative to the ancient mythology of my agricultural ancestors. The reason why I speak on this personal level not relevant to Wikipedia, is that your attack was on this level not relevant to Wikipedia. Tuohirulla puhu 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not related to this article directly but in general, every recent scientific study about Finno-Ugrians has also focused on genetics. So I'm not sure why do you keep removing such studies from wikipedia? The only explanation I can think of, to promote Kalevi Wiik's alternative hypotheses on the subject?
Regarding the rest: In the context Finnic means and only can mean historic tribes. Not only because I'm not aware of any modern finnic peoples nor mythologies. But most of all because the sources the article is based on, for example European Mythology, the chapter on -Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies starts up speaking about the years 6000-4000 B.C.E.--Termer (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
PS. Comment on: "...clearly suggest that there is this Finnic group with a lot more ties than just linquistic ties". I'm not suggesting anything, it's been a known fact for quite some time that Haplogroup N (Y-DNA)(and citing the NG Genographic project):...today effectively trace a migration of Uralic speaking peoples during the last several thousand years. and/or please see HaplogroupsMap -Y Haplogroups of Europe from my hometown: at the University of Illinois website. And/or European Journal of Human Genetics -haplogroup (N2-E)...mostly distributed in Finno-Ugric and related populations.
Regarding "hunter gatherer mythology vs the ancient mythology of my agricultural ancestors" then sure, about 3000BCE arrived to the region the Balts who brought along Corded Ware culture with agriculture and that may have made also a split between the later Sami and Finnish mythology.--Termer (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you stop branding me with one ridiculous brand after another? Im not a supporter of K.Wiik or any theory or ideology. I specifically reject the theory of K.Wiik. I dont consider Finland as a part of Scandinavia. I love the Sami people. I dont have any feature that you might want to use to discredit me. Im just against a mass of false claims and irrelevant material, and I want to make Wikipedia better.
A genetic map, or the distribution of certain gene(s) doesn't prove the existence of a super-family of tribes or ethnicities comparable to "germanics" or "slavics". With your evidence the genetic part is still totally irrelevant on any of your "finnic"-related articles. "Finnic" is still a linguistic group, as you have already strongly accepted, and linquistic groups are groups of languages defined by linguistics and linguists. The way you use the sources to justify articles which in fact speaks about super-etnihicity comparable to "germanics" or "slavics" (and on this case of its mythology) is far fetched original research. Tuohirulla puhu 09:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Didn't get it, are you saying "germanics" or "slavics" are ethnically and genetically pure races? "germanics" or "slavics" are super-etnihicity? Well, it's actually opposite, in no place on earth is one genetic line most dominant like the Y haplogroup N in Finland is 60%. No Germanic or Slavic can match this. So please take this discussion to relevant article Haplogroup N (Y-DNA)
Now, in case you have problems with the term 'Finnic mythologies' including also the Sami and Volga Finns, not just the Baltic Finns, please take it to Leeming, David Adams (2003). European Mythology. Oxford University Press. Once they change this concept, we'll take it to wikiedia. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I said nothing about pure races or anything like that; that is a straw man made by you. I used "germanics" and "slavics" as an analogy of the "finnics" presented in your versions of your articles. I meant, that your articles gives an impression that this "finnic peoples" (of your definition) is some sort of a defined family of ethnicities like "germanic peoples" or "slavic peoples", with some sort of special common identity, culture, mythology, history etc.
The gene data you give is still totally irrelevant to any of your article regarding "finnics". Relating a piece of genetic data to a linquistic grouping "finnic" to the extent to justify the existence of wikipedia articles about these "finnic peoples" as a specially related family of ethnicities (or clearly giving that impression), is your original research.
Also, the large conclusions you draw from a small and arbitrarily picked piece of genetic data are badly mistaken and also your original research, but that doesnt matter since the whole genetic issue is irrelevant here.
Also, you are not the one and only who decides which material can be included on wikipedia and which material cant. Your higher level of activity is not a justification for you to rule about these articles. Tuohirulla puhu 10:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is not going anywhere and I'm not so sure what exactly are you after. You keep talking about something without referring to any sources, yet the article is based on WP:RS. This discussion is over, its taken to WP:RSN.--Termer (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-contradictory and improperly scoped[edit]

The lead says this covers the mythologies of the Volga Finns, Baltic Finns, Permians, and Sami, but the article text actually covers the mythologies of the Finns (lumped together), Estonians, Sami, and Mordvins. Thus, the Permians are not represented in the text, and the Mordvins (which are not even Finnic) and Estonians are not mentioned in the lead.

Furthermore, if we're going to include the Estonians, would not also the Karelians be include, also being a historically Finnic culture? If we're going to include the Sami, who are Uralic, and in their own language family under the Uralic languages, a sister family to Finnic), then why not the rest of the Uralic cultures? The lead contradiction aside, this article seems to be mix-and-matching a geographical and linguistic/cultural approach, and mix-and-matching even further within the latter.

The article should surely be re-scoped as one of the following, and renamed as necessary:

  • Mythologies found geographically in Finland (which should not be labeled "Finnic", a term with a specific culturo-linguistic meaning); this would necessarily mean historical Finland, not its exact present-day boundaries, but would exclude Nordic and Slavic mythologies.
  • Mythologies of the actual Finnic cultures, i.e. speakers of Finnish, Karelian, Ludic, Veps, Ingrian, Votic, Estonian, and Livonian (to the extent we have surviving material about their pre-Christian mythologies).
  • Mythologies of the Uralic cultures, which includes the above Finnic group, plus speakers of the Mordvinic, Permic, Sami, and Samoyedic language families, and the isolates Hungarian, Khanty, and Mansi (Hungarian could be a complication, since separation of "native" Hungarian mythology and the mythologies of successive Eastern invaders may not always be clear in sources; however we already have Hungarian mythology, so it can simply but WP:SUMMARY-treated here.)
  • Mythologies of the Finno-Ugric cultures (same as Uralic, except minus the Samoyedic peoples of north Asia).

 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a continuing problem with reifying linguistic classifications as if they were ethnicities. If a common historical religious tradition of the Finnic peoples (your second suggestion) can be demonstrated, then that should be the scope of the article. If that tradition is shared by peoples who do not speak Finnic languages, then they should also be included: this is an article about religion, not language. Your first suggestion IMO is not appropriate because the modern borders of Finland do not correspond to any religious distinction. The more expansive scopes are even less coherent in topic than the second, and some may already have been deleted for not having a coherent topic. — kwami (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If you check Note 1 in the article, and the discussion above, you'll find out that parts of this article have been written with an older definition of "Finnic" in mind, that equals the current-day term Finno-Permic; while others appear to have been written with the narrow sense in mind, i.e. Baltic-Finnic. I gather topics like Karelian mythology are currently excluded only because this is a work in progress, not for any explicit reason.
I support the second re-scoping, as Baltic-Finnic only (or, if necessarily, slightly narrower, e.g. Finnish+Karelian). Already the article itself admits that the mythologies here are "various", and later down, e.g. that there are no significant commonalities between the Erzya and Moksha mythologies. Details of non-Finnic Uralic peoples' mythologies rather belong in more specific articles like Permian mythology or Ob-Ugric mythology, and if there's a need to outline connections, we can put those in the overview article Uralic mythology — or perhaps some other, suitable umbrella term. --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 20:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is in letting linguistic models define ethnicity and religion. Ob-Ugric, for example, is defunct. Does that mean that their mythologies have changed? An article on mythology should be able to stand on its own, and not depend on the latest conclusions in an unrelated discipline. Let the mythologies define the scope of the article. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it's the opposite. Not that this is directly relevant for this article, but there is indeed various literature specifically covering the Mansi and Khanty mythologies as a unit, and "Ob-Ugric" has always been clearer defined ethnologically than linguistically (though so far we regardless do not have an article Ob-Ugric peoples, only Ob-Ugric languages). --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 14:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)