Talk:King of Kvenland

Another missing Kven king source added: Faravid

In 1230 - 1240 AD, in Egils saga - presumably by Snorri Sturluson (1179-1241 A.D.) - discusses Faravid, the King of Kvenland (source: KVENLAND / KAINUUNMAA, 1986, page 73 - includes a picture of an old manuscript - Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku).

- - Steve Wondering 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another missing Kven king source added: Fornjótr

In 1230 AD, in the introduction to the Orkneyinga Saga, Fundinn Noregr discusses Fornjótr, the King of Finland and Kvenland and the conquest of Norway by his son, Nórr (source: KVENLAND / KAINUUNMAA, 1986, page 61 - includes the Icelandic and Finnish spellings of the original text -, Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku).

Based on the information given in this saga, the ruling families of Sweden, Norway, the Orkney Islands, Normandy, and England descend from these Finnish and/or Kven kings.

In contrary to what the user Drieakko claims, there is no mentioning about Gotland in this context. The text is very clear and quite easily readable and understandable to all Scandinavians, and in particular to those who can understand the modern-day Icelandic language.

- - Steve Wondering 11:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You can see Gotland clearly mentioned by both Hversu and Orkneyinga, just open the references at the end of the article. I am aware that some Finnish translations have "cleaned" Gotland away to build up believable royal Kvenland mythologies. See English translations here and here. --Drieakko 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the sagas do not say or even hint to the direction that kings mentioned in them would have been Kvens, with the probable exception of Faravid. --Drieakko 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sagas in original Old Icelandic here. Gotland clearly mentioned:

"Fornjótr hefir konungr heitit. Hann réð fyrir Gotlandi, er kallat er Finnland ok Kvenland."

"Þorri var konungr ágætr. Hann réð fyrir Gotlandi, Kænlandi ok Finnlandi." --Drieakko 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting heavy. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku has actually manipulated his sources??!! Shame on him. Downright disgusting. 217.112.242.181 19:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a version of Orkneyinga saga around by an unknown scribe that has already polished the confusing "Gotland" away from the text. Julku has just selected that version for his own publication, not mentioning that it is not the commonly accepted original. All versions of Hversu mention Gotland, though. Julku conveniently leaves Hversu out of his book. --Drieakko 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles IX

Further sockpuppetry should be deleted on sight.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have again reinstated the section on Charles IX. This is referenced information that scholars have discussed in this connection, and as such it belongs in the article. The same editor has also repeatedly removed it from the Kvenland article. It is nowhere claimed that the term "King of Kvenland" was still in use as such at that time; rather, it has been argued that one of the king's titles was a later term with that meaning. As such, it belongs in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC) @Yngvadottir:The reference to Charles IX does not belong in the articles about Kvenland or the King of Kvenland, because Charles IX has never been connected with Kvenland in any way by any known historian. If you dispute this fact, you must present source material that says the opposite and can be verified by myself and others. Can you present such source material?Finnedi (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC) References 5 and 8 cover the matter, discussing the term used in Charles IX's list and relating it to the term Kvenland. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) @Yngvadottir:No, they do not cover the matter. No historian has ever linked Charles IX with Kvenland in any way. I'm waiting for a source.Finnedi (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Merely asserting they don't cover it doesn't make it so. Julku's book connects the term "Caejan" with the term "Kven", and here on p. 102, for example, he can be seen relating it to Charles IX's regnal claim. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC) @Yngvadottir:In the source [1] Kaarle IX is not linked to Kvenland on the p. 102 (or elsewhere) in any way whatsoever. Such a linking would have been impossible in the first place, because Charles was never a King of Kvenland. Kvenland existed long before his time.Finnedi (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Neither the article nor the sources claim any such thing. The discussion among scholars - including Julku - concerns whether the Cajianers (sp.) are a later name for the Kvens. As stated in the article. You may disagree with the theory, but it has been discussed, and thus is presented neutrally and with references. Your disagreement with it does not mean it has not been discussed by academics, nor that it should not be included in the article. In fact we need to include it in the article because it has been discussed by academics. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) @Yngvadottir:The Caijaners and/or Kvens who lived later have nothing whatsoever to do with either Kvenland or the King of Kvenland. Charles IX lived in 1550-1611 and Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century. Thus, a king, who lived at a time when Kvenland no longer existed, does not belong in the article. Can't be too difficult to understand, is it?Finnedi (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC) You are apparently not understanding yourself: what you are saying is that you disagree with the theory. That is not the same thing as its not being a theory discussed in reliable sources. However, there is now a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, opened by you, so we should suspend this discussion pending the arrival of mediators. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC) No theories concerning the king's dealings with the Caijaners belong in the article, because Charles IX lived in 1550-1611, i.e. at a time when Kvenland no longer existed. Charles IX has not been linked to the ancient Kvenland by any known historian.Finnedi (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC) So you discount the sources in the article? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC) No historian ever drew a link between Kvenland and Charles IX. There are still Kvens living in Norway today but no historian has ever linked the current king of Norway to the ancient Kvenland either. The same applies to Charles IX vs a land that existed long before his time.Finnedi (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I side with those who want the disputed text to be kept, for the following reason: "Sweden", "Sverige" and "Ruotsi" all mean the same thing in different languages. Similarly, "Kvenland", "Kainu/u" and "Caienska Semla" (in slightly varying spellings) also all mean the same thing, in different languages, according to e.g. Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa', 1986.) Although the terms Kven and Kvenland are entirely absent from all old Swedish literature, the term Caienska (compare to Svenska) - in different spellings - has been used in old maps and texts over centuries. Julku provides several examples of such uses in his study 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa' (1986). Accordingly, the following statement of Finnedi on the Dispute resolution noticeboard is misleading: "Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century." The Kvenland article currently correctly states that the term Kvenland "with that or close to that spelling - seems to have gone out of ordinary usage around the end of the 13th century, unrecognized by scholars by the 14th century." However, Kvenland's separate status next to - and later, within - the Swedish Realm only gradually diminished thereafter, over many centuries. According to Kyösti Julku, even after the reign of Charles IX's son in the 17th century, Kainuu (same as Kvenland in the medieval era, according to Julku) "occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come" (Source: Julku, Kyösti, 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa'. With English summary: The Ancient territory of Kainuu. Oulu, 1986). The part of the article which Finnedi wants to remove needs to stay. The text itself explains why it needs to stay. The added map in the Kvenland article, showing Europe in 814, is a good addition. BogatusAB (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Caienska Semla = North Bothnia. (See the link. Julku: Kvenland – Kainuunmaa, p. 113) http://books.google.com/books?id=MZNIAQAAIAAJ&q=Caienska+Semla&dq=Caienska+Semla&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=O8FFU7P-N6_AygOa2YDQDA&redir_esc=y Caienska Semla means the area of Kainuu (North Bothnia), NOT the land, Kvenland. Kainuu still exists to this day, but Kvenland disappeared from all historical records long ago. "Caienska" doesn’t refer to Kvenland in Julku’s book. Only one translation is given by him. Julku is very specific about the use of the names of places. You must know local history and geography to understand the difference. Kvenland certainly never had a "status within the Swedish Realm". This would have been impossible. Julku writes: "Kainuu (= North Bothnia/Österbotten) had for a long time a special status compared to the rest of Finland." Kvenland is not mentioned in this context because Kvenland, the land, did not exist any more and the "special status" referring now to the Kainuu area was a relic, a tribute to something that once was, but didn’t exist any more. The Kingdom of Sweden was founded in 1530 but Kvenland vanished from the documented history by the end of the 14th century so a link cannot be drawn. A summary: Charles IX lived in 1550-1611 and, thus, he of course never was a king of Kvenland or linked to Kvenland by any known historian. He has only been linked to the Caijaners that lived later, during his time, i.e. at a time when Kvenland no longer existed. There still are Kvens living in Norway today but that’s no reason to link the current king of Norway to the ancient Kvenland either. Any more than Charles IX can be linked with either the present-day Kvens, Kvenland or the King of Kvenland. Reference to Charles IX simply does not belong in either article, King of Kvenland or Kvenland.Finnedi (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC) (Comment by obvious sockpuppet deleted) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC) BS. You know very well that there was a clear consensus against you, both at WP:DRN and WP:NPOV. And, FYI, an indefinite block is a block of the person behind a user name, not just an individual user account, meaning that any and all other accounts used by that person for continuing the activities that led to the block will also be blocked . Thomas.W talk 09:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles IX controversy

• Greetings all, especially including to my old discussion mate Thomas.W from Continuation War talk days.
• First off, I am extremely NOT INTERESTED in this subject for its own sake. Only here 'cuz I was on Yngvadottir's talk page on a totally unrelated matter when this was apparently getting ugly, and I'm hypothesizing the now-banned user or someone who knows him recognized my Finnish user name; in any case someone left a note for me at my talk page about this.
• I'm also not here to defend the banned user's ongoing behavior. Nevertheless, the material is controversial, at least to the banned user; and none of you who undertook to eliminate the opposition have bothered, before or since, to bring that material up anywhere close to WP standards in the articles. If someone had actually pointed out to the user THE PROPER WAY to object to info, you all might have gained/preserved a valuable member of the WP community instead of creating a Wiki-hater. And saved yourselves a lot of headaches in the process. I think the onus was on a couple administrators in particular whose involvement was apparently solicited.
• Whether to follow WP's basic cornerstone policies rel WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, etc., is not optional and not subject to consensus. I'd suggest a review of those rules, which state among other things you can't make stuff up--ANY stuff--and, e.g., (Page in a nutshell box at top of page:) "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."
• It's fine with me whether this info goes or stays. But since it was drawn to my attention, I'm placing the tags that clearly belong there. If the info is to stay, it must be FAITHFULLY supported by RSs--which must be FAITHFULLY represented, neither of which at this point can be determined because, for examples, sources are in a foreign language and need translations provided and several places no sources whatsoever are cited.
• I am here requesting per WP:Foreign sources, (from anybody who wants to keep the material for which the foreign source is cited) an English translation to existing and any future non-English sources.
• Two positive notes: I see that Thomas.W is the user who first welcomed the now-banned user at the now-banned user's talk page; too bad the good will didn't last. Also, I see Admin. Future Perfect stating (alone AFAICS) on this or another talk page serious interest in getting someone to Wikify/fix the content.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

First off (so to speak), I'm setting aside the assumption of bad faith with regards to how the IP and then registered user who objected to this section was treated (and shortening the section title accordingly). No one can be expected to trawl through the lengthy history of this article and all the associated user talk page posts (I finally started a discussion section on this page myself). And the recent Dispute resolution noticeboard section that he opened may have also escaped your notice. I put there sources I had found while trying to address the user's point, and if no one else does so first, I intend to use them in rewriting Kvenland. However, I have now rewritten the section in this article using them and a couple more, and turning the argument around so that I hope it is now clearer and better founded. I've removed most of the tags but have yet to hunt down one of the sources for which you request translation, or a source regarding the castle. So those tags I have left. I hope this rewrite allays some of the concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again User:Yngvadottir,

Thanks for your effort to improve the section in question.

1. Could you please clarify 4 me whether you believe the Wikipedia policies on no original research and verifiability apply to this article and section.

IMO the task to resolve the sourcing issue is much easier because a specific suggestion is being made in the Charles-IX-King of-Kvenland-claim. Under the section of the no OR policy on synthesis, it AFAICT prohibits combining info from two sources to arrive at a conclusion AND prohibits editors from analyzing, amplifying, inferring etc. from a source. 'Have to stay w/i a source's four corners.

In simple terms either one or more scholarly published sources DO say--INDIVIDUALLY--Charles IX was the king of Kvenland OR such sources have not been found. If not, that material does not belong in the article. Specifically regarding your rework of the Charles IX section, in your statement "Charles IX's claim can thus be seen as "king of the Kvens",[13] that is, of Kvenland," the "...that is, of Kvenland" appears 2 me 2B your own analysis. What the source you've cited says is "When Charles IX was crowned in 1607, he styled himself "king of the Kvens and Lapps in Nordland." 'Seems to me king of the Kvens and king of Kvenland are two discrete ideas, there being Kvens in northern Norway still today. Per the rules cited, Wikipedia is the wrong venue and WP editors are the wrong people to be introducing new ideas. That is prohibited OR. It's not necessarily fatal that "Kvenland" was not a term used in Charles IX's lifetime/ What is fatal to inclusion of the assertion is the failure of at least ONE published scholar to assert that precise point.

Also there are the sourcing problems in the surrounding info, from some of which you've removed the tags I placed. That material still needs to 2B sourced as well if it will remain, so please leave those tags in place unless or until sources are added.

2. Unless you don't believe those need to be sourced? In which case please explain why not.

3. Also, what about the English translations of the foreign sources? Why were those tags removed?

Finally, thank you for removing the banner cite tag. That belongs at the top of the article. I see uncited material in the first section too.

For anyone else reading this, Admin. Future Perfect's remarks rel the problem, stated at Talk:Kvenland, at least partially overlap and may be clearer and are probably more elegantly stated than mine here.

Regards Paavo273 (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the translations of the Swedish and the Latin that I added? No, I don't believe we need to source the statement that the term "Kvenland" fell into disuse, although if I find a source making that obvious point, I'll add it. For "the Kvens" / "the Caijaners" vs. "Kvenland" / "Kaijanerland", see my long response at Talk:Kvenland regarding the fluidity of such terms in the past, esp. in the Middle Ages. You are of course more than welcome to find additional sources yourself, and/or translate Finnish passages. Or are your suggestions for improvement here limited to demanding changes? If you can't see your way to helping, I'm sure others will step up as time permits. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Yngvadottir,

0. And please see my remarks there under yours.

1. Could you please point out where you placed the the English? translations of the material you translated.

2. In my interpretation of the rules, ALL material you place that is not so obvious as the examples given in the OR rule (such as Paris is in France or the earth is a globe or whatever) need to be sourced to stay. The OR rule would IMO certainly extend to a statement about an arcane subject such as "'Kvenland' fell into disuse."

3. The real issue, however, IMO, is my last bolded remark above. Without that, this section must fall like a house of cards.

4. My involvement in this article, as noted above, is to make sure whatever stays in it is properly sourced consistent with one of WP's most fundamental, inviolable policies, WP:No original research and related ones. I think this all has "seasoned" long enough by now--apparently several months or longer with nobody ever fixing it--all while an edit war was raging with editors demanding the material be kept. Now that I've placed formal tags there, 'might as well leave those for a reasonable time, too.

5. However, please do not remove any cite tags until EITHER the information is accurately sourced OR until you remove the info. Rel the translations, if you'll point me to where your English translations are, I'll remove those translation tags immediately myself.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As to the translations, you will find "Charles IX, of Sweden, Goth[land], Wend[land], Finns, Karelians, Lapps in the Northland, the Caijaners and Esters in Lifland, etc., king" in note 6: that is my translation of the passage quoted in the text. (The longer bit in the note is the title of the book/document, and as such does not require a translation; in any case the part at issue appears in both.) And in note 8 you will find the translation of the Latin cited there: of Lapland, Bothnia, and Caijania, the northern provinces of the kingdom of Sweden, a new delineation" (I forgot an opening pair of quote marks). I cannot promise to give extensive time to your concerns; as I say, I am hoping to get some help with satisfying them, although no, I don't believe it's urgent to find someone to cite for the fact the placename "Kvenland" had fallen into disuse. But rest assured they are noted; I am sorry that my efforts so far have not been satisfactory in your judgement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir,

Thanks for your trouble! I'll look for those there.

I agree with you. It is NOT urgent to source the Kvenland→disuse assertion. That and other sourcing issues can be worked out.

The only thing that REALLY matters IMO, and upon which this entire section depends, is whether any source actually states Chas9 was king of Kvenland.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No source for Charles IX as King of Kvenland

Hi again fellow Wikipedians, including Yngvadottir and Thomas.W: IFAICT, the issues are pretty clear-cut here reading the discussion. The state of the article many months later is such that the critical part now states

Julku and others have argued that "Caijaners", a Swedish name for the inhabitants of Kainuu, is here equivalent to the Old Norse kvenir, and some have seen an etymological link between Kven, Caijaner, and the Finnic term kainulainen/kainuulainen.[6][11][12][13][14] Charles IX's claim can thus be seen as "king of the Kvens",[15] that is, of Kvenland.[citation needed]

1. It appears to me that this lack of a sourced nexus between Charles IX and Kvenland is not going to be overcome.

2. AFAIK, Wikipedia:No original research, being one of three cornerstone policies of WP, is not subject to consensus, but should be followed in all cases.

3. I also briefly quote from Admin. Future Perfect at Sunrise's remarks found in their entirety toward the bottom of Talk:Kvenland#Charles IX. Those remarks, IMO, have compelling applicability here.

... What the section demonstrates is that he called himself king of the "Caijaners" (i.e Kainuu people), and that some people have written about an etymological connection between "Kainuu" and "Kven", but that's not the same as saying either that he called himself king of the Kvens, or indeed that anybody else ever claimed he did. In the absence of proper sourcing for the specific claim that such a claim is "often stated", the whole section sounds like it is arguing against a self-constructed straw-man. At present there is no indication in the article either why Charles' royal title is of any significance for the topic of Kvens, or why the etymological background of the name of "Kainuu" is of any significance for the titles of Charles IX. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Kainuu" does seem to have been a more geographically specific concept, from what I gather, was it not? Certainly at the time when Charles IX was using it – he intended to call himself king of the specific people living around a specific town in his own time, not king of some mythic people of old that he may or may not have even heard about, and who may or may not have lived in the same or a vaguely similar area and may or may not have been of similar ethnic stock. Which in itself suggests that the terms were, as I've been saying, not "equivalent". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

These and other of Future Perfect's remarks as well as my own previous remarks on this page and at Kvenland talk are I think no less relevant than when they were made.

QUERY: So can we agree to delete the Charles IX section from this article? In the alternative, are you willing to follow the dispute resolution process to resolve this?

Kind regards, Paavo273 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The dispute resolution process was quite thoroughly followed: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 90#Kvenland; you should read the collapsed sections also for full discussion of the sources. I've left the tags in place out of deference to you and others, but personally I consider the point well supported and not contentiously explained. You may be missing the factor that until relatively recently, it was traditional in Northern Europe to refer to a place (the territory of a tribe, or the locale where a group of people lived) in terms of the people, and not to add a noun to it such as land; this remained logical when speaking of who kings reigned over, so "King of the Caijaners" is equivalent to "King of the Caijaners' Land". That justifies the last clause in the section. I considered removing just that last bit in response to your query, but it's necessary to make that point for modern readers who are not familiar with the ancient usage. The preceding material - establishing that scholars have considered "Caijaner" and other similar words equivalent to the ancient "Kven" - I consider justified by the cited sources. So those are my reasons. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I see in fact I already explained this at Talk:Kvenland. This is not original research; it is a difference between modern polities, with boundaries established by natural features such as bodies of water and by surveyed lines, and ancient overlordships, which were defined in terms of groups of people. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir,

The text has to stand on its own, supported by the sources. Thanks for the link to the DRN. That one didn't really doesn't address the basic issue I'm raising here. The assertion has to stand by itself BACKED UP BY A QUALIFYING PUBLISHED SOURCE or it can't fly. The OR comes in if as editors we put our own spin on it--even if it's TRUE. The rule is pretty straightforward: Unless an author published outside WP has said it it doesn't belong. Your explanation above is still WP:Synthesis at best.

DRN is only the first step of the dispute resolution process. Can we agree that that step was already followed?

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. I consider the articles both present the situation fairly based on the sources. You disagree, hence the tags; I have left them in case someone can find a clearer way to express it. I see someone has now supplied citations you requested at Talk:Kvenland. But no, I do not consider this original research and I will therefore not agree to removing the section. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir,

I think we're at cross purposes here. MANY citations have been supplied in both articles. But the critical missing citation I raised in our original discussion, above, has NOT been supplied. And IMO it's reasonable to conclude it never will be supplied, well at least until the day you or another scholar publishes your work outside WP.

I am not arguing against the reasonableness of your argument. The problem is no published author (outside WP) has been found to make that assertion. That's the only issue AFAIAC. And it's NOT a trivial issue. It's one of the biggies. "One of the three."

From WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[9] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

If you want to do another DRN on this issue, I'm okay with it, but in the interests of all participants' time, can we agree that step has been met?

Paavo273 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the point is OR. It's a fact of how jurisdictions/places used to be referred to. Once more - I would remove that last clause only, but I believe modern readers need it to understand. I certainly will not agree to the removal of the entire section. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Yngvadottir. So at least we can agree on what the issue for dispute resolution is. IMO, it would be reasonable to delete the unsourced and apparently unsourcable information BUT FOR the fact that that is WHAT the article is ABOUT. If we were to retitle the article "King of the Kvens and Lapps in Nordland," it'd probably be okay. IMO the no OR and no synthesis rule needs to be our guide here.

As I look at that old DRN again, I'm thinking we'll need to do a new one. First, it was NOT AFAICT an OR DRN. (AND it was withdrawn.)

Paavo273 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider that those of us in opposition to Finnedi's view made our case there, and I rewrote that section of the article with the specific references found. Again, I see you have been supplied with more references on the talk page of the other article. I'm afraid what you appear to be rejecting is simply a feature of older language/legal use. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir,

I PERSONALLY am NOT rejecting your argument about the factual historical info, e.g., historical use, non-use, or evolution of terminology; definitions or similarities of geographical boundaries; etc. My objection is that no published author has made that exact claim. Even if you add in sourced material about the older language, it at best goes from OR to synthesis. It really never gets over the OR hurdle, I'm afraid. WHY has no historian/scholar been willing to stick his/her neck out and make the connection? IDK. Until someone does, This IMO just cannot fly. It's not our function as Wikipedians to make original arguments or assertions, regardless of how compelling or factual they may be.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a "sky is blue" point. You would have the best chance of finding it explained in basic primers for reading medieval languages, or as a note in any history textbook where the point comes up. It is not specific to this instance - hence why the scholar who made the longest exploration of the different words did not stop to point it out. It underpins his entire argument, though. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir,

It seems strange IMO if that is so, that no one has been able to produce a single reference to it over many months or actually years.

Is the discussion here, IYO, collectively a fair statement of why you believe Chas9 as King of Kvenland is NOT OR? If so, 'guess I'll open an OR DRN.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It may seem strange to you, but it is a basic historical fact. I would simply remove that clause, but modern readers will not know this. The concept of "country" as distinct from "tribe" or "nation" is a modern one, and in regnal titles it still even in Charles' day made more sense to refer to the people (claimed to be) ruled than the patch of land. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sky is blue" and "basic historical fact"  ???

Unless someone can find a qualifying source (or ANY source for starters) that DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY connects Charles IX to Kvenland--and nobody has been able to produce such a reference for at least the last seven years--then the Kvenland reference needs to be deleted. And if so, what relevance does Charles IX have to articles about Kvenland or the King of Kvenland? None, IMO, when no scholar has made the connection. So it all needs to go.

IMO when observed/filtered through the lens of the no original research rule (which, like the other two core policies, every WP editor and administrator needs an intimate understanding of and appreciation for if Wikipedia is to not be thoroughly corrupted) the Charles IX material cannot stay. In either article. Until the day some scholar/historian makes a link between the two in a published work. Paavo273 (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, as stated above. You are applying an anachronistic standard; the fact that few modern readers are aware of the older usage is why I did not remove that last clause. It's needed for comprehension of what the connection is. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

1. IMHO, neither the NO OR rule, much quoted and linked here in talk by me, nor if I may borrow your term, my "sky is blue" application of it, is anachronistic. On the contrary, this is one of three timely, indispensable underpinnings of all Wikipedia writing, without which Wikipedia becomes a cavalier not to mention GROSSLY UNRELIABLE product.

2. When I have time, I will move this forward to DR, starting with a DRN-OR. What I see here is blatant original research and unconvincing attempts to justify its existence on Wikpedia. And I don't mean only the last unsourced sentence. Since no link can be made between Charles IX and Kvenland, the entire section needs 2B jettisoned.

3. It's IMO interesting to read User:Drieakko's text on point that created this article. Paavo273 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Able to trace lineage to Fornjot

Through ancestry.com and find-a-grave.com I can trace one of my lines to Fornjot "The Ancient Giant" King of Kvenland. I think that further support that he is real. Born is 184, he would be my 46th great grandfather through his son Kari Fornjotson, King of Kvenland c. 189-240. 47.213.156.125 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)