Talk:Kvenland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Finland (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Origin of the name Kainuu[edit]

Related article about the Origin of the name Kainuu is now available. --Drieakko 20:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Word "Finn" for Sami people[edit]

User Borath, please read articles Sami people and Sápmi to get more information on the usage of the word "Finn" about Sami people. The word has been used very extensively in Norwegian up until the 20th century. --Drieakko 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In Norway we have two traditional names for the Sami-people; "Same" and "Lapp".

The claim that the Norwegians have used "Finns" to describe "Lapps" stems form the word Lapp-Finns, foremerly used in Sweden, by people foreign to northern Sweden, where the name is "Same" and "Samar" (plural) or "Lapp" and "Lappar" (plural).

The claim that Norwegians used "Finns" to describe "Lapps" is entirely based on a misunderstanding. Unfortunately; using a misunderstanding to verify a misunderstanding doesnt make the conclusion an understanding.

The rest of this page also appears to be a mix of understanding and misunderstanding - with general conclusions that are unsubstantiated as well as speculative. Thus the entire page simply presents itself as the result of an unestablished private research. (Borath 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

I am sorry, but this is not correct at all. All historical Norwegian documents use the word Finn for Sami people, and it is still a common word in Northern Norway, though somewhat politically incorrect. The word "Lapp" started to gain ground only in the 19th century as a loan from Swedish (who had loaned it from Finnish) and Same is a 20th century word. I hope this discussion is not heading to claims that they were Finns all this time. --Drieakko 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is Oslo University online Norwegian dictionary for you, please search for "finn" there: [1]. This discussion was already once active on this page, see archive 2. And btw, the Swedish plural for Sami people is "samer". --Drieakko 02:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You still keep refering to the term; 1)"lapp-finnar", and the synonymous expression 2. "fjell-finner". They both refer to the Sami-people, as an own etnicity and culture - but with a language similar to the Finnish (Uralic) tongue. Thus we have had local variations of the names given to the Sami poplations of northern Sweden and Norway.

Though, what you write about the term "Lapp"/"Lapp-", as a word used only in Sweden before the 19th century is wrong. The official term used by the Norwegian authorieties was "Lapp", "Lapper", "Lappene" - already during the 17th century. Please see the classics of "Speculum Boreale" (1698) and "Lappe-codicilen" (1751) - and you may get a more thorough and real understanding of the matters of which you claim to have an expertisè.

Unfortunately, using an outdated, Norwegian dictionary as a source of reference just doesn't do. Especially when the source iteself states that the origin of the name "fjell-finn" is "unknown". Then you would normally have to look for other and better sources - and definitly refrain from using it as a source of historically relevant and valid information; to back up a statement in a lexical article. Otherwise we have to start insisting that you please enlighten the reader of these pages on where and when you received an academical training.

(Borath 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

The dictionary is by the Oslo University and it says that "finn" means the same as "same". Whether Oslo University knows what Norwegian language is, is not a debate within Wikipedia. But you can pick any other Norwegian dictionary as well and it is there as well. I am still missing the point here. --Drieakko 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
About the two publications you mentioned. "Speculum Boreale" is written by Hans Lilienskiold who was from a Danish family but born in southern Norway, He said e.g. that Finnmark was named after kings called Finne; he also found ruins of their former residences. "Lappecodicilen" is the treaty between Denmark-Norway and Sweden defining their northern border. I have not read either one. --Drieakko 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly rigth, you keep missing points - to persist your biased views.

The point in question is that the University of Oslo doesnt say that "Finn" equals "Same". It say's that "-finne" is a suffix, to "Fjell-" that joined together expresses the semantic intent of "mountaineer" + "finn", which litterally describe a "mountain-man-with-Finnish-tongue".

The Swedes uses the clothes of the sami as a marker, as "Lapp" means "patch", in refering to the patch-work which characterizes the style of sewing that makes the Sami's characteristic ("national") dresses. Thus the Swedes uses "Lapps" to name the Sami and "Lapp-finne" to add a description of their language in the description of A Sami person. Just as the coastal culture of the Norwegians adressed the "Mountain-Finns" to be distinctivly different from the regular "Finns".

The "Finne-konge" of the arctic north of Norway was definitly of Finnish and not of Sami etnicity, as it was used together with the old term "Kven" as in "The Kven-konge", refering to the "King of Finns" AS the "King of Kvens" as well as the "king of the Bjarme".

Consequently they reffered to the "Finne-Konge" as the common king of both the Kven and the Bjarm, as they were of the same basic etnicity, culture and language. Just like the Queen of England today can be called the regent of the Anglia, the Humbria, the Wales, the Ireland and the Scotland. Now, if an American tourist visit Scotland he get to hear that Elisabeth II is "The Queen of Scots". Visiting Dublin he then gets the explanation that "Elisabeth II is our Queen". Do you think he would write home that "the Brittish Isles have several kingdoms. And they are all calling their queenS Elisabeth II"?!

Looking at the way you investigate the history of the arctic north I would say he migth do. Moreover, to an ignorant audience back home his message could become a "written document" explaining a "strange habbit of these islanders". Just like an ignorant use of old texts describing the arctic north can be used to create and "document" a picture of the arctic populations, that produce nothing but a massive confusion.

The plain material of the arctic circumference is giving a much more clear picture han you seem to advocate. Already from the Neolithic societies we have had "Finns" to the east and "Swedes" to the west of the old borderline between the eastern and western cultures of Scandinavia, that being the north-south axis of the TORNE River, the Botnic Bay and the Botnic Ocean.

Follow that line down south and you will divide Eastern Europe from Western Europe. Historically we had "Saxons" and "Danes" to the west - and "Wends" or "Vens" to the east.

East of the Baltic Ocean we had "Vend-land", where is today the "Baltic states". North of this Vend-land we have always had the Finnish Gulf ("Finska Viken" (Swedish), "Finske-bukta" (Norwegian) and "Vinlands-Golfen" (mythos). East of Finland we still have "Väne-jä", the Finnish name or Russia.

North of Finland we had the northern "Vener", called "K-vener" to distrinct this branch of the Finns as the northern, versus the southern "Vener"/"Vender". Thus we had "Ven(d)-land" down south and "K-Ven-land" up north.

Present results from the European Genome Project have clearly confirmed this "early spread" of the Uralic population, east of the mentioned N-S axis.

In completing the direction of The Torne River you may get to find the border-area between the traditional KVEN-LAND and the respective "SVEA-LAND" and - to the north-west; "NOR-VEG". The traditional border of the Viking Norwegians were met at "Bjark-ey" - just north of Lofoten, where the trade with the KVENS (and not the Sami) used to start.

Thus the city of Troms-ey (Tromso) signifies the general meeting-area of the various rivers and routes that towed the actic treasures (hide, fuhr, lamp-oil, tar, etc.) out of the high north and down to the larger societies of middle age Europe.

The area north of Tromso was never considered "Norwegian" - but "Kvenland". Along the northern coast and inland - it went all the way to "Gandvik" in the White Sea. East of that sea the Viking traders would find the "Bjarmi" and "Bjarmeland", who were of the same etnicity and culture (trappers and traders) as the Kven. Easy of "Gandvik" they would find "Holmgard" as the Bjarmis capitol centre. In Greek sources it was named "Bjarmia". Later that became "Permia" and "Perm" - in modern slavonic - with "Arch Angelsk" as the new capitol - as the Greek-Orthodox took over Vend-land, Ros-land and Bjarme-land - while the Roman-Catholic powers expanded into Scandinavia, Finland and - ultimately - Kvenland.

In that process the reindeer-herders of the mountains were hardly touched. As small and "remote" populations the Churches of Istanbul and Rome did not even recognize their produce as worth while taxing. Thus the Sami populations escaped the "Christianisation" - and the consequent taxation - until the end of the 18th century.

In an old Norse language, as still spoken on Iceland, the word for Sami is "Lapp" (plural "Lappir"). IF a group of "Lappir" would speak Mongolian or Inuit, he would NOT be called "Finn-lapp" - but rather "Eskimo". Either you call such a person a "Finn-lapp", a "Lapp-finn" or a "Fjell-finn" he would have to be speaking a Finno-Ugrian language - although he migth have a different etnic background. The Sami popualtion were simply the westernmost branch of the "mountaineers" of the Himalayan area - from were a arcticly adapted population were able to follow the Ural Mountains up north as the ice-age ceased. From here they spread to both the east and west - circumferencing the North Pole, as soon as the climate allowed them to. According to the genetic trails their arrival in Fenno-Scandia is estimated to have happened between the 5th and 7th millenias BP. Their first major centre to the west of the White Sea was made at Lake Enari, in the very north of old Kvenland. Thus the later branches of the Sami people all learned to communicate with the indigenous "lowlanders" and traders of this area - as the sami-settlers became the "mountain neighbours" to the woodlanders, trappers and traders known as the "northern branch of the Finno-Ugrian peoples" - also called "Kvens".

Have a happy celebration of the First Full Moon after a new Spring Equinox!

(Borath 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for the long post. I will need some time to think about it. As for the good old dictionary, this is the description of the word "finn" there:
finn m1 (norr finnr, uvisst opph) mest dial: same fjellf- reindriftssame
which means that "finn" is the same as Sami in most of the dialects and "fjellfinn" is the same as the reindeer-breeding Sami. Etymology not clear. Happy Eastern to you as well! --Drieakko 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be a common misunderstanding in the Kven/Kvenland discussion that all Sami have always been reindeer herders, and only lived in what now are the Sami core areas. Perhaps this article should have a section about the Sami and how references to them can be mistaken to be about Finnish people/ Kvens?Labongo 05:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
About the theory that Finn is used about "Himalayan mountaineers" talking a Finno-Ugric language. First, at the time when the names appeared I doubt that they were aware of the linguistic connection between the Finnish and Sami languages. Second, the Sami Mongolian connection has been genetically proven to be wrong. Labongo 05:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

B-Class?[edit]

The article is currently rated as a B-Class article. I believe this article is good enough to receive a better rating. I will therefore suggest that the main contributor User:Drieakko nominates this article as a Good article candidate.Labongo 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but B class is already a good level. The article is somewhat unbalanced with its extensive usage of primary sources, which resulted from the incident with the now-banned "Kven user", pushing nonsense into this and other articles that could not be tackled in any other way than getting to the original material. IMO, the article is in its current shape very informative, but not GA quality by Wikipedia's definition of the class. --Drieakko 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

The article stresses disproportionally a view that ancient Kvenland was most probably situated in SW Finland. No references are given. The established research (Vahtola, Julku etc.) firmly situate Kvenland in Northern Finland. This view is mentioned, but presented in a dismissive way. It seems that the article is highly POV and contains a lot of original research by Drieakko. Drieakko's obvious expertise on this matter might very well mean that his theory needs to be taken seriously, but should he/she publish it first somewhere else?--130.234.5.136 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Article browses through all the primary sources that are scattered here and there, in detail. Sometimes the line between original research and presentation of sources goes thin, but the target is naturally to keep it neutral. Please point out chapters that need fixing.
The reason for the current approach is that such a huge amount of utter nonsense is published on this issue, making claims that are beyond anything that is given in sources. You can check the Talk Page archives what was the result of that before the approach went for the primary material. Theories about Kvenland are summarized at the end, making room for Vahtola, Julku, Klinge and others. IMHO, Julku's speculative theory about Kvenland (which due to its nationalistic undertones has its firm supporters) would need an article of its own just to get that properly presented. At the end of the day, it is not as strange as his claims about Finns being the first people in all northern Europe, but on close inspection not very far. --Drieakko 08:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In some places, you start analyzing the texts and presenting conclusions that might seem self-evident, but perhaps are not. Indeed, I find some of your conclusions rather speculative. Certainly they are not just "presentation of sources". This is original research in my view. On the other hand, it seems to be research of professional quality, so please publish it.
Moreover, the Kvenland problem is not just about the textual sources, it is also about linguistics, archaeology, toponymic evidence and so on. It is not necessarily a bad thing to make interpretations that go beyond the meagre written evidence.
And I should like to point out that whatever ideological commitments professors Julku and Vahtola might have, their theories of Kvenland have been reproduced in Swedish and Norwegian studies that cannot possibly have a Fenno-nationalistic agenda. And, anyway, scientific criticism does not belong to Wikipedia.--91.153.112.198 17:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions are appreciated, but I disagree with your remarks that the parts of text that you have removed would contain original research. It is not sufficient to label text as original research only if it points out undisputed facts, even though the same facts would have been bluntly ignored by some researchers. However, the article needs a face-lift overall, especially regarding text reorganization that does not currently separate historical and legendary saga sources from each other. And btw, I'd kindly recommend you to join Wikipedia with a username. Acting with multiple IPs is not the best possible position to start an argument. --Drieakko 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, your comment of "undisputed facts" being "bluntly ignored" might be partially justified, but it is scientific criticism that does not really belong to Wikipedia. It is at least theoretically possible that some dubious details in the confused old texts should be ignored to get a more balanced overall view. Your version, however, stresses tendenciously certain details (or rather a certain interpretation of the said details) in the textual evidence, suggesting quite openly and directly that the well-established theory of the northern Kvenland is incorrect. And you cannot seriously claim that "Thorolf went eastwards" leads into "Kvenland was in SW Finland" without a tortuous chain a conclusions. If this is not original research, then what is?
If the idea is just to present the relevant materials, I think it is best to let the reader make his/her own conclusions without pseudo-neutral commentaries.
I realize, of course, that the present article with all its bias is a huge improvement compared to the bizarre fringe theories championed by the "Kven User". Thank you for your suggestion, I'll register an username next time.--128.214.17.121 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)--Username registered.--Kirmukarmu 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a citation from Wikipedia rules: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions."--217.112.249.156 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Finnish tribes in the area[edit]

This article is excellent!!

Finlands history is unfortunately being interpreted with biased Scandinavian nationalism and socialdarwinism, so it's great to read articles that deal with Finlands history in this serious manner.

I think it should be noted that there were several Finnish tribes (that today are known as Finns, Estonians, Karelians, Veps, Ingrians, Votes and Livs) along the whole northeastern Baltic sea. The Livs lived in what is today Latvia and probably had good connections with the neighbouring Baltic tribes. It gives support to the raid against Svitjod. Depending on sources, the ones that sacked the Swedish capital were mainly Karelians and/or Estonians. With a little help from their southern Curonian friends?

Furthermore, there is modern support (in the form of DNA research) to the sagas that the founding kings of Norway could very well have come from what today is Finland. Genetic studies confirms that the inhabitants of southwestern Finland were of the same Haplogroup as is the most common in Norway, I1A. As todays Finnish language contains a great deal of Indo-European loan words, it's only reasonable to assume that they originate from the IE speaking peoples of those days. On what other language could Thorolf have met and talked to King Faravid?

Mythology in combination with genetic data reveals more; According to Ynglingasagan the inhabitants that became the Danes, that became the coastal Swedes and Norwegians, came from the east. The most common Haplogroup of these peoples is R1B, very common in eastern Europe.

Balticbandit (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotland?[edit]

"the king Fornjót that 'reigned over Gotland, which we now know as Finland and Kvenland'".

I'm probably altogether mistaken here but could the text be referring to the Ostrogoth kingdom which the Huns conqured or demolished in the 4th century. After that the northen areas of Russia and the areas east of Scandinavian in general were inhabited by Finno-Ugric peoples until the Slavic expansion. By the early Middle Age, the closest areas to Scandinavia in the east were still inhabitated by Finnic peoples in Kvenland and Finland among other places. I'm not saying that any accurate historical account would have existed at the time but certainly anybody who had even a vague picture of the history of the Roman Empire and its decline and the role the Goths had been playing, and who by then knew who lived next to the in the east, could reconstruct a history that follows what's described above: "long ago we had these Goths (of whom we have legends) in the east but then they went to conquer Europe and now we have these Finns and Kvens in the east instead". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.70.16 (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

An highly original theory of the location of Kvenland in SW Finland is being put forth without any references. A lot of original or at least unrefenced conclusions or theories are present, like the correction of Othhere´s geography according to the Viking compass. Reference tags are confusingly misused as non-referenced endnotes.--130.234.68.211 (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See my response to your message, which you left on my talk page. Thank you. Nortonius (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of a NNPOV map[edit]

I removed the map in which Kvenland was situated in SW Finland without references. Author of the map had carefully situated the central point of Sweden around Östergötland. In this way he could facture a piece of "evidence" for his theory of Kvenland in SW Finland. If the central point of Sweden was situated around the lake Mälaren, where "Swithiod" presumably really was, we would have a very different picture as the arrow leading towards NE would be directed at NW coast of Finland. And NW coast of Finland is where Kvenland was situated according to pretty much everyone who has published a theory of this subject. The map is so manipulated and misleading that IMHO it cannot be restored. Wikipedia rules against original research make it very clear that new and unreferenced theories cannot be presented in the articles, not even as possibilities.--130.234.5.136 (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cutting shorter un-sourced speculation about the lakes / adding related archaeological finding with sources[edit]

Rearranged already existing "Possible other sources" under headlines in unified way. Included piece of info - archaeological discovery made in 2013 in Finland of silver plate originating from Merovingian period Gotland. This was added next to Gotland-related DNA findings. Sources & quotes were included.

Shortened the lengthy, confusing and un-sourced speculations about all the various "lake" theories, leading to as far as southeastern Finland, which is nowhere near "mountains", as discussed by Ohthere. If this were to be kept, the speculation should have references (with sources) to historians, who - possibly - have suggested this. This part should be kept shorter. What do others think? Lena Ast (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you did not simply rearrange things, you added 3,295 bytes of what seems like original research, unsourced speculations and synthesis of something or other, with an edit summary that I see as misleading. Which is why I reverted your edit. Thomas.W talk to me 05:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As stated on talks, pertinent other info, with sources & expert quotes, were added. This and my cropping down the original research about the "meres" and my changing the forwarding of Sarmatia to Sarmatia in the article accumulated most of the bytes. No support of Ohthere's "Sermende" referring to Persia has been provided. The contemporary Poland-related meaning of the term deserves to be shown in this article, as it is provided e.g. in the article Sarmatism.
How in your view does the Norwegian online dictionary Oslo University online Norwegian dictionary. Search for the word "finn" - used as a source - support the claim that the term "Finn" in Norway would have meant only Sami? Why should misuse of a source and misleading of Wikipedia users be allowed, especially when historians have no consensus about this matter (as pointed out e.g. by K. Julku)?
If anyone objects to any part of my edit, please let me know what part exactly and why precisely. Lena Ast (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Information pertaining to "Women Land" lacking from the article[edit]

The article lacks information of what historians say about the concepts of Women Land and Pohjola in relation to Kvenland. Brief descriptions added, with sources. BoArnezzz (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Various theories exist about the meaning of the remarks in ancient texts on the suggested female sovereignty in Kvenland. What ever the case, as this matter is widely discussed in related studies and - therefore - introduced in this article, a brief description with sources needs to be included. In addition to secondary sources, central quotes from primary sources that are widely used in related studies are included. From where the Pohjola theory (already in the article) stems from, is also explained briefly. BoArnezzz (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles IX[edit]

I have reinstated the referenced section on Charles IX, which explains quite clearly that it has been raised in connection with Kvenland - and specifically with its kings. The same editor has also removed it repeatedly at King of Kvenland. This is something that has been raised by scholars in this connection; as such, it belongs in the article. It is never claimed that the term "Kvenland" was still used at that time. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 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) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
References 4 and 29 cover the matter, discussing the term used in Charles IX's list and its relationship to Kvenland. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:25, 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 an alleged source.Finnedi (talk) 20:34, 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) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir:In the source [2] 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) 21:20, 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) 22:04, 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) 22:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So you discount the sources in the article? Yngvadottir (talk) 23:43, 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) 04:22, 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) 18:09, 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) 03:44, 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 09:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Irrespective of the disruption from the various Finnedi socks here, I think there actually is an issue about that "Charles IX" section, about which Finnedi may have had some kind of point. I have "fact"-tagged the introductory sentence of that section, claiming that "It is often stated that King Charles IX of Sweden would have called himself King of the Kvens". (Incidentally, that seems to be grammatically wrong English anyway; what's the "would" doing there?) I see no sourcing for this claim. 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)

@Fut.Perf.: The titles used by Charles IX is just a minor part of it. Personally I don't give the proverbial rat's a* about Charles IX or his titles, but I very much dislike the major, and very fringe, rewriting of northern European history that Finnedi in his multiple incarnations has been trying to get into various articles here on en-WP, up to and including claiming that the Vikings/Varangians/early Rus' weren't Germanic Scandinavians but Finns... Thomas.W talk 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, that's all fine, but the "titles used by Charles IX" is clearly not just a "minor part" of that section; the whole section is ostensibly about it, and I really don't see what Finnedi's (doubtlessly disruptive) rewriting of history has otherwise to do with it. Fut.Perf. 14:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Fut.Perf.: I guess I wasn't being clear enough. "Minor part" refers to the edit-war over the titles used by Charles IX being just a small part of Finnedi's long-term tendentious editing, not to the titles being just a small part of this particular article. Thomas.W talk 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I am agnostic on the actual content, but at WP:DRN it was established that there was a "one holdout against everyone else" consensus for the current version. If anyone thinks that the local consensus was wrong, I suggest posting an RfC in order to establish consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
When a single editor is so obviously disruptive in other ways that he gets everybody else up in arms against him, it can easily happen that some argument he tries to make gets lost even if there is a kernel of truth in it somewhere. In this case, even with the change made recently by Ingvadottyr [3], I'm still not really convinced what relevance the Charles IX story has. The whole point that's relevant for this article is the (assumed) etymological relationship between "Kven" and "Kainuu". But that's already treated one section further down. As long as the name "Kainuu" in itself is historically well attested and well understood during the modern period, it really doesn't matter who happened to refer to it in what ways on what occasions, does it? Fut.Perf. 21:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thinking further about the current wording ("...suggested that one of the titles of King Charles IX of Sweden was equivalent to 'King of the Kvens'"), I'm afraid I must still object. The article, both in this section and in the one below, is far too quick to conflate the notion of two names being etymologically related with the notion of them being "equivalent". That's simply not the same thing. For example, the name of Wales is undoubtedly etymlogically related to the names of Gaul, Wallonia and even Walachia, but nobody would want to claim that these four geographical concepts are "equivalent" (and we certainly don't have a statement in our article about Wallachia claiming that the current heir to the British Throne bears a title that is "equivalent" to that of "Prince of the Vlachs"). Fut.Perf. 09:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"Kvens/Qwens", "Kainuu", "Caijaner" etc are equivalent since they refer to the same people in the same geographical area. The difference between them being that they're in different languages and/or used during different periods of time. "Kvens/Qwens" and "Caijaners" in Germanic languages and "Kainuu" in Sami and Finnish (like the English name Wales and its direct equivalents in Welsh, Cymru, Spanish, es:Gales, and French, fr:Pays de Galles). Thomas.W talk 10:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not seeing the sources supporting that. What I'm seeing in the material cited is that they are names for similar people in a similar area, not for the same people in the same area. If there's something more specific than that in the sources, could you please quote it directly? Fut.Perf. 10:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlike most other parts of Europe "Kvenland" is not, and never has been, an area with a defined border (in any direction other than the sea), so it is really only a geographical name describing the general area around the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia, an area with a population that has varied greatly over time, both in size and ethnic composition/origin. So "similar" is about as exact as it can get... Thomas.W talk 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but "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)
PS. Yngvadottir has indicated that she intends to do a major rewrite of this article. Thomas.W talk 10:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That would certainly be welcome. Fut.Perf. 11:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I think this article needs a good rewrite, and it's on my list to do. That will probably involve further shortening the Charles IX segment, such as no longer quoting it in its entirety (and I also intend to put the Latin in King of Kvenland, since I can see it in the Julku book online and I am not certain which is the original wording). The thing is, in the Middle Ages it was normal to refer to a place inhabited by a particular bunch of people either as "Xland" or as "among the Xs". They are pretty much interchangeable, with some languages (Anglo-Saxon being the one I know well) preferring the latter usage. Although with the generalization of the feudal system and the increasing efforts of kings to assert control over their kingdoms, which included judicial institutionalization of defined borders, we see the development during the medieval period of a notion of a state as a territorial unit with sub-units that seems normal to us today, and although this was in many respects going back to how the Roman Empire already functioned (and this was explicitly recognized in written texts) and the Danevirke represents an example of the kind of administratively maintained border between polities that we are used to ... it isn't necessarily so that on the ground, in every place, defined administrative units had any reality. The Kvens/Caijaners probably moved - just as the Angles and Saxons did, so that today we have both Angeln and England named after the former and Lower Saxony and Saxony named after the latter back on the continent (plus the use of words derived from "Saxon" in various languages to signify "German"). In fact the modern use of "Kven" for Finnish-speaking people in part of northern Norway attests to this. The article has to cover both the varying uses of "Kven" and "Kvenland" at different times and in different places, and the theories about its origins/meaning, in which the identification with the "Caijaner" word is a datum, including its use in the regnal list, and the fact that the Finnish cognate is now used for a specified place and its inhabitants does not preclude others of whom the same word was and/or is used having lived in other places at other times - and now. Nor does it preclude other scholars from arguing against the Kven/Caijaner/Kaijanmaa identification, in whole or in part; it just means that the datum belongs in the articles, with varying emphasis and expansion between them, in the context of presenting the theories. But we should not expect to be able to identify one particular place as having been Kvenland, or be surprised if some scholars argue that the term - or "among the Kvens", its medieval equivalent - has applied to more than one place. (It pretty clearly has, unless one identifies some of the texts as geographically confused.) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is IMO a lot simpler than this. And I am NOT suggesting that Yngvadottir's analysis here is incorrect. What is required however under WP sourcing rules, including especially WP:No original research (as discussed at Talk:King of Kvenland) is that some reputable scholar somewhere has to have published that exact assertion--perhaps even using Yngvadottir's analysis. Otherwise it's OR and not permitted in WP.
It's of secondary importance WHERE Kvenland actually was (although I think that's pretty well established. Isn't it?). What matters is you need a published RS that says Charles IX was "king of Kvenland", not just king of the Kvens. Paavo273 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


References to Kvens and Kvenland in Swedish maps and texts after the 14th century[edit]

Although the oldest known Swedish account was written as late as the 14th century (Eric's Chronicle), the term Kven (in slightly varying spellings) can be found in both Swedish and Norwegian - and other - old writings after the 14th century. Other terms for "Kven" have been used as well, most notably the terms Birkarlar (Birkarls) and Caienska, both in slightly varying spellings. There are old references to Kvenland too (e.g. "Caienska Semla"), which were printed after the 14th century.

Unlike user Finnedi stated, Professor Julku alone has provided more than just the one translation for the term "Caieska Semla", which Finnedi pointed out with a support of a net link - Caienska Semla = North Bothnia [4]. Even that link provides another translation too - Caienska Semla = Kainuu [5].

The oldest Norwegian tax records remaining, stored at the National Archives of Norway, "Riksarkivet", dating to the mid-1500s, mention Kvens (by that term).

The 1539 map Carta Marina by Olaus Magnus shows "Bercara Qvenar" (Birkarl Kvens) written atop Northern Scandinavia. In 1555, Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (History of Northern Peoples) by Olaus Magnus describes the Finnish traders inhabiting and commuting between the northern coastal area of the Gulf of Bothnia and Norway as "Kvens".

Below are a few quotes (there may be more) from Julku's book 'Kvenland - Kainuunmaa' (1986), which include further translations for the terms "Caienska" (in varying spellings) and "Caienska Semla":

Page 114 (map from 1570): "Kainuunmaa (Caienska Semla) Jäämeren rannalla aivan kartan ylälaidassa." (Free translation to English: "Kainuunmaa (Caienska Semla) on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, at the very top of the map.")

Page 115 (map from 1595): "Kainuunmaa (Caienska Semla) aivan kartan ylälaidassa Jäämeren rannalla." (Free translation to English: "Kainuunmaa (Caienska Semla) at the very top of the map, on the coast of the Arctic Ocean.")

Page 118 (map from 1595): "Vuoreijan ja Varangin vuonon länsipuolisen alueen nimenä Kainuu, "Caienska Semla"." (Free translation to English: "Kainuu, "Caienska Semla", as the name of the territory located west from Vardø and Varangerfjorden.")

Page 118 (map from 1613): "Siinä on vielä Jäämeren "Caienska Semla"." (Free translation to English: "There is still "Caienska Semla" of the Arctic Ocean.")

In the same book, Julku shows examples of old uses of the term "Caienska" (in slightly varying spellings) in reference to the Kven Sea (Kainuun meri), today known as the Gulf of Bothnia. However, the earliest known reference to Kven Sea ("Qwensae"), from c. 890 CE, appears to have referred to the entire Baltic Sea, when King Alfred the Great noted that where Germany ends, the Kven Sea ("Qwensae") begins.

E.g. the Russians are known to have referred to the Gulf of Bothnia as "Kainuun meri" (Kainuunmeri / "Kven Sea") or "Kajaanin meri", Julku points out (page 95). Julku brings up the following documented old spellings for Kainuunmeri (pages 94-96):

• "Kajano more" (in the Peace Treaty of Pähkinäsaari) in 1323 • "kajano more" in c. 1336-1351 • "mare Koen" in 1497 • "Kainw (Cainus) mare" in 1504 • "mare Kayno" in 1510 • "Cayana mare" • "mare Caino" in 1535 • "mare Caino" in 1537 • "Kaynus mehre" in 1561.

Below is another similar list - not from Julku:

• "Qwensae", by King Alfred the Great in the Universal History of Orosius in 890 • "Kajano more", in the Peace Treaty of Pähkinäsaari in 1323 • "mare Cayane" in 1497 • "Kainw Mare" in 1497 • "mare Kayano" in 1510 • "Cayane mare" in 1535 • "mare Caino" in 1535 • "Kaynys mehre" in 1561 • "Cwen Sea", by Johann Reinhold Forster in 1772. - - BogatusAB (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC) (placed by BogatusAB at my talk page; re-placed here by Paavo273 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC))

Hi BogatusAB, Thanks for this detailed info w/ page numbers. PROVIDED the basic threshold sourcing problem can be overcome per WP:No original research as described above and at Talk:King of Kvenland, this specific info may help source some of the missing cites for the ancillary info currently tagged in various articles. Paavo273 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kvenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Kvenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kvenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Resent deletions of Thomas.W[edit]

Thomas.W is persistantly deleting the map of the area of (speculative) Kvenland and also the part of the text which connects the word Kvenland to the word Kainuu. The map has sources provided in the file description and the latter has been studied by Kyösti Julku and Jouko Vahtola, but these are not enough sources for Thomas.W. I would like to start a discussion weather we should accept his deletions which he so persistently wants to do or should we respect what the sources say.

The map added by Roxanna is leaning to following sources:

1.about the supposed position of Quaenland: File:Europe 814.jpg (The Public Schools Historical Atlas by Charles Colbeck. Longmans, Green; New York; London; Bombay. 1905.)
2.about Finns and Sami: File:Meyers b11 s0476a.jpg, map for Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, 5th ed., vol 12 (article "Menschenrassen"). Meyers, Leipzig 1897
3.about the former expansion of Samic people: Großer Atlas zur Weltgeschichte, pages 50, 57, 60f. Westermann, Braunschweig 1997 / dtv-Taschenatlas, vol. 1, page 130. dtv, Munich 1990
4.about the recent expansion of Finns and Karelians: Taschenatlas Völker und Sprachen, pages 36 and 74. Klett-Perthes, Gotha 2006 / народы мира – историко-этнографический справочник, pages 544d and 560b. Moscow 1988

The latter deletion made by Thomas.W is the part of the article where it states that "That is the area seen by most historians to have been the heartland of the ancient territory of Kvenland. Accordingly, the view most commonly shared by historians today is that the names "Kven" and "Kainu(u)" likely share Origin of the name Kainuu common roots". --Velivieras (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

  • The map was removed since it is OR/synth, combining data from vastly different time periods and presenting it as if it all belongs together (in order to support a number of fringe theories, from there having existed a Finnish country named Kvenland/Quaenland to Finns being the original native population of most of Scandinavia), in direct violation of WP:SYNTH, quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my emphasis), which disallows the map since it implies that Finns lived around the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia in 814AD, the year given in the map the name comes from; and the rest was removed simply for being unsourced, a claim like "the view most commonly shared by historians today is that the names "Kven" and "Kainu(u)" likely share Kainuu common roots" needs a very strong source, a source that also shows that it is a mainstream theory shared by a large number of historians, and not a fringe view being given undue weight. As for the rest it doesn't matter who originally added the map, Velivieras broke the rules by repeatedly re-adding it in spite of being told that it is OR/synth, and just dropping a couple of in an international context unknown names doesn't change the fact that it is unsourced. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kvenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)