Jump to content

Talk:Sámi peoples/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Ethnic relatives?

As far as I know the sami aren't related to the finnic peoples more than by the language. Wich was presumably forced upon them. So why are the finnic peoples listed as their ethnic relatives? --DerMeister 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Finns are related to them linguistically, not ethnically. The article should mention that the Sami must have spoken a non-Finnic language until they came into contact with the ancestors of the Finns and adopted their language. That non-Finnic language is long extinct, and has left no trace at all so we know absolutely nothing about it. It is probably not related to any other known language. Edrigu 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted that Finns are genetically Germanic people that switched their earlier Indo-European (?) language to a Finno-Ugric one. Both Finns and Sami people have presumably adopted their language from a third group that is no longer recognizable; or perhaps Finns took their language from the Sami people who had earlier taken it from some other group. Populations were so small in the north thousands of years ago that relatively few new-comers could bring fundamental changes on the original people's culture and language. --Drieakko 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a gross oversimplification at best. Finns have clear genetic differences to germanic speaking peoples, but obviously a large amount of germanic and baltic people have contributed the finnish gene-pool. The likely scenario is one of peaceful coexistence leading to assimmilation of the minority, which if it happens more than once can even account for a majority import of genetics.--AkselGerner (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article, please note that there is no evidence of a single pre-Finno-Ugric language spoken by the Sami people. Sami people could quite as well have spoken several independent languages that had only few hundreds speakers each. Linguistic incoherence could have accelerated the adoption of a Finno-Ugric language that came with new cultural elements and presumably also with some new people. --Drieakko 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the above, if we put our collective effort in to it I'm sure we can make this clear to the people reading it. I added this:

As to when and were the sami actually came from, nobody knows. Linguistically they are finnic but ethnically and culturally they are unique. The sami almost surely had an own language that died out in favour for an early version of finnish when the finns came to the north. It is important to know that the north was so sparsely poppulated that the immigration of very few people would surely have an enormous effect on all people. --DerMeister 10:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted this, because the passage is poorly structured and contains factual errors. First, stating that nobody knows where the Sami came from is cliche, and it entails the assumption that ethnic groups have usually just "come" from somewhere. This is generally untrue; ethnogenesis is a much more complex process. Second, the statement that the Sami are linguistically Finnic is false, and the claim that the Sami languages derive from an "early version of finnish" is just bizarre. "Finnic" means the same as "Baltic Finnic", and the Sami languages are not Finnic, let alone that they would derive from Finnish. --AAikio 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The language section is incomplete without mentioning the fact that the Sami at one point spoke a non-Finno-Urgic language and adopted their current language from the ancestors of the Finns. I'm open to any suggestions on the best way to phrase this. Edrigu 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
To state that "the Sami at one point spoke a non-Finno-Urgic language and adopted their current language from the ancestors of the Finns" is such an oversimpflication that it is essentially incorrect. First, all populations are genetically mixed to some degree, they are not unchanging monoliths so that we could say that population A acquired its language form the ancestors of population B, or the like. I don't dispute the idea that there has been widespread language shift in the Saami area, but we can't speak of the Saami population as a delimited group that first spoke one language and then borrwed another from Finns or their ancestors. I could try to write something more exact on ethnolinguistic history for this article in the future, and to include references as well.--AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Most likely the Sami were not techically "Sami" before they assimilated into the Sami-finnic language group. The entnonym given to them is of baltic origin and the same etnonym was in fact given to the finnish tribes Hämäläiset (s>h) (also referred to at times as Tavastians), the same word is argued by some to have later formed the basis for the word Suomi, the finnish endonym. So the etnonym is likely to have been adopted after the adoption of language. They were of course a people (or perhaps more than one people in the case they had at that time more than one language), but they had a different name for themselves, and that is hardly of small importance in terms of ethnic identity. A more correct way to formulate the events is that "ancestors of the Sami, living indigenously in and around present day Sapmi and speaking one or more unidentified languages, adopted their language from peoples speaking a language from which descends both the samic languages and the baltic-finnic languages". That's not very good writing, but at least it corresponds with the accepted facts, and points out the fact that the genetic background is not the same as the linguistic background. --AkselGerner (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, where do they come from? Genetically they have no "neighbours". Sami languages sound ALOT like finnish. You seem to be very well aware of this, please do enlighten us. I'm writing an essay about the sami at the moment and have more or less got stuck. Most of the stuff that relates to the language and history are filled with words such as "probably", "assume" and "belived to..". The idea that sami would derive from an earlier version of finnish (or vice versa?) is not my idea, I read it from a book that stated that it COULD be like that. I'll chek if I can find the book in the librarry next time I'm there (in a year or so :P).--DerMeister 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A correct way to say this would be that the Saami are a genetic outlier among the European populations. This means that they have a relatively isolated genetic history, but not completely isolated. Therefore we have no reason to speak of whole populations borrowing their language, or something similar.
As for Saami languages deriving from Finnish, this is something that is nowadays rejected by everyone in the field of comparative Uralic linguistics, regardless of whether such claims are made in some reference or not. It is an idea so bizarrely incorrect that it could be compared to saying that English derives from an early form of French. Finnish and the other (Baltic) Finnic languages derive from Proto-Finnic and the Saami languages derive from Proto-Saami. Proto-Finnic and Proto-Saami, in turn, derive from Proto-Uralic, possibly via an intermediate proto-language called Proto-Finni-Saami (this last detail is disputed, though). --AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just plain not true AAikio. The consensus in Uralic studies is that Sami languages descend directly from sami-finnic; from which also the baltic-finnic languages directly descend. Proto-Uralic isn't even close. The ones dabbling in dating the divergences along language family trees (I don't feel this to be a clever thing to do, but still for clarity I mention it) posit a 3000-4000 year distance between proto-Uralic and Sami-Finnic. Sami languages have undergone some quite impressive sound changes, but they are not enough to mask the strong correlation between finnic and samic, it is a far closer relation than finnic and finno-permic.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't come from anywhere, they've always been there (at least as long as anyone knows), it is the Finnish speakers who come from somewhere else. I believe I am to blame for calling the Sami language a "finnic" language, as I was under the impression that finnic meant the same thing as the the Finno half of Finno-Ugric, and it does not. In any case, the modern Sami languages all derive from the same language that Finnish derives from. But the important point I'm trying to get across is that they did not always speak a Uralic language, they spoke some unattested extinct language, or perhaps several. Edrigu 17:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Finnic" does not mean "Finno-Ugric minus Ugric"; it means the same as "Baltic Finnic". However, the erroneous usage of this term is regrettably widespread in references that were not written by Uralic specialists.--AAikio 08:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think all peoples in the world at one point spoke a language that they do not speak anymore. So that kind of remark about Sami people is just pointless. --Drieakko 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really, if a particular ethnic group's ancestors spoke a different language, they don't necessarily have any connections to those ancestors (except genetically) and no one would call them the same ethnic group. But the Sami are the same ethnically now as they were before they adopted their Uralic language. I know I'm not explaining this very well but I hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say. We know when the Uralic speakers moved into that region and came into contact with the Sami (and it was relatively recently) so we can say with some certainty whenabouts they began to speak a Uralic language. Edrigu 20:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A brief comment on this as well: why do you think " the Sami are the same ethnically now as they were before they adopted their Uralic language"? This strikes me as pure speculation, even though I'm not even exactly sure what you mean by this. I don't dispute the idea that there was a relatively recent language shift, just the opposite (in fact, I've myself recently argued for this view in some detail), but I don't see how the Sami could have remained ethnically "the same" through a language shift. We don't know anything about the ethnicity of the pre-Sami groups in Lapland, and I can't see how there could have been an ethnic continuity through a language shift. --AAikio 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting talkback. What is "relatively recent" in this context? --Drieakko 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the inexact wording; in the Iron Age was what I meant. More exact dating is hard, but a realistic time frame is something between the beginning of the Iron Age and A.D. 500. It seems highly unlikely that Saami would have been spoken in Lapland before the Iron Age. I can't go here into the exact linguistic arguments that show this, because that would be too long to explain here. But in case anyone's interested in this, the arguments supporting this can be found in this reference: Ante Aikio (2004), An essay on substrate studies and the origin of Saami. (In: Irma Hyvärinen, Petri Kallio & Jarmo Korhonen (eds.), Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen: Festschrift für Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburtstag. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 63: 5-34.)--AAikio 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hearing this for the first time, it sounds quite radical. Since the Germanic presence in Scandinavia was very strong in the Iron Age and if the then population on the Sami area was prone to have a language change, it sounds strange that they would have gone for a Finno-Ugric language and not for a Germanic one that was used by a far more dominant group of people in their immediate vicinity. --Drieakko 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Radical, perhaps, but as far as I can see, the evidence is pretty clear: there's a lot of linguistic evidence (from vocabulary and place-names) suggesting that a language shift from unknown languages to Saami took place in Lapland in the early Iron Age. On the other hand, there is no evidence that would suggest an earlier presence of the Saami language in this area, rather to the contrary - e.g. the existence of pre-Finnic and Proto-Baltic loans in Saami suggest that Saami was originally spoken much further south. This idea seems to have been accepted by some archaeologists working on Saami ethnogenesis as well, notably Christian Carpelan (see The Saami: a Cultural Encyclopedia s.v. origins). I don't see the Germanic issue as a problem to this. If we're speaking of southern Scandinavia, then the Germanic/Nordic influence was strong, but as far as northern Lapland and the Kola peninsula are concerned, there's nothing that would suggest any extensive Nordic settlement before the Viking Age.--AAikio 16:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What would have motivated such a remarkable shift in the Iron Age? Is it necessary that the language spoken in the Sami area before the Iron Age was a non-Finno-Ugric one? Would a more suitable theory be that the Finno-Ugric languages just continuosly adopted new elements from each other, mainly roaming from south to north along with other cultural influences. This regular update would have continued up until the time when proto-Finnic language was adopted by small groups of Germanic people living from farming on the coasts: having a too different background and culture, they eventually split from the hunter-gatherer proto-Samic people living more north. --Drieakko 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
As to why the shift took place, I can't say. The linguistic data indicates that such a shift happened, but at present the reasons of the process are entirely unclear. And in general I'm somewhat skeptical as to what degree we can essentially reconstruct prehistoric sociolinguistic processes; there's no clear source of evidence which would allow this to be done. In general, however, such a language shift is not very remarkable, given that language shifts are known to be common throughout history (also in hunter-gatherer societies).
We can't of course prove that the language (or rather, languages) spoken in Lapland before Saami was not Uralic. But at least there seems to be no evidence supporting this idea, and at least some details speak against it: e.g., judging from substrate place-names, the pre-Saami language in Lapland had initial consonant clusters like sk-, which are not typical to Uralic. As to the idea of waves of influence from the south which would have "updated" the language, I can't see evidence for this. If this was the case, it would have resulted in either mere borrowing and dialect mixture (which could be detected by the comparative method), or, if the "update" was complete, then it would essentially mean the same as language shift (from one Finno-Ugric language to another, i.e. Proto-Saami).
There's also one general condition which ought to be taken into account here, which clearly supports the idea of language shift. Finland, Karelia and Lapland together form an immense area, and it would be unrealistic to assume that it was inhabited by only one ethnolinguistic group (Proto-Saami) for any lengthy period of time, without linguistic divergence as a result. The ethnographic record of the world shows that linguistic diversity is highest among hunter-gatherers. This can be seen in the Saami area as well, where we have 10 distinct languages each of which traditionally occupied only a small region. But going back in time to the early Iron Age, we arrive at a single ancestral language, Proto-Saami. One language can only have originally developed in one speech community, and hence there's every reason to assume that Proto-Saami also was originally spoken in a rather limited area and only secondary spread to cover this vast territory. The divergence of the proto-language into several local Saami languages can then be neatly explained as a direct result of the expansion, which made it impossible to maintain a communication network over the entire area. But stretching the Saami presence in Lapland farther back to the Bronze Age, we would lose the correlation between spread and divergence. Instead, one would have to assume that Proto-Saami first developed uniformly in this huge area in the Bronze Age, but then - for unclear reasons - split into 10+ distinct languages in the Iron Age without any change in the geographic distribution; such a scenario would not seem plausible. --AAikio 08:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Thinking this again, it does not sound as implausible as I first thought it was. There is also a point of time in archaeology that gives some support for this hypothesis, although we drift here to speculation. At the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age, around 500 BCE, climate became clearly colder in the north. As a result from that, coastal population in Finland living from cattle breeding and small-scale farming was in serious trouble, forced to resort to earlier more nomadic ways. Population on the coast was presumably too numerous to support everyone any more, and many people moved in a relatively short period of time to the wilderness to live from hunting and gathering. These people, presumably speaking a Finno-Ugric language, would then have spread to waste areas populated by Sami ancestors, disrupting their lives so that they adopted the language spoken by the newcomers. So, as an indirect result from the economical collapse in the south, a linguistic change in the north may have taken place; but again, this is speculation. --Drieakko 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Two small points to consider: There is archeological evidence of close contact between indigenous population in Finland (thought to be Sami) and the nativized form of the war-axe-culture (thought to have been the beginning of finnish people) in the bronze age. Second, it is a known historical fact (documented also by chroniclers) that Sami people lived throughout the length of Finland, all the way down to the south coast. The regression to present Sapmi occurred only from 1000AD-1700AD, and was accompanied with some assimilation of Sami into Finnish population, for example the Finnish family name "Lappalainen" can be traced to have originally belonged only to assimilated Sami.
Finno-Ugric language spread to Northern Europe presumably 5000-6000 years ago. Finnic and Sami languages separated some 3000-3500 years ago. Ethnically "Sami" groups are not recognizable from archaeological findings of that era. People inhabiting the present-day Sami region back then and Sami people today most likely have nothing else in common except their genetics. --Drieakko 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Like I asked on your talk page, do you have sources for that? Most scholars think Proto-Uralic was still undivided 5-6000 years ago, or at least that fenno-ugric was still united then.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely as Finnish and Sami are way too close to have separated so far ago. Language does _NOT_ equal ethnicity people! --85.226.83.84 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about continuous theories on the Sami are partially a result of racial mixture of Asiatic peoples? You may find many Sami have long dark hair, slant eyes, high cheekbones and light tan skins. The Sami are indigenous to the Arctic alike other Finno-Uralic and Altaic peoples (they produced Hungarians and Turkic speaking groups) in close proximity to indigenous peoples of Siberia, Mongolia and possibly North America (the Inuits) extending into...Greenland. The Sami are an interest to genetic science in ways to connect the earlier origins of Asian and European races in the last ice age (10,000 years ago?). No doubt about the Sami are an European people whose origins are farther south and farther east, but the Sami of pre-Germanic history may been an Asiatic or Siberian people. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If this assumption is based on linguistic relatedness, one should bear in mind that comparative linguistics postulate that the Sami languages and the Baltic-Finnic languages separated during the 2nd millennium BC. This time span would be more or less equivalent with the postulated chronology for the separation of e.g. Germanic, Celtic and Slavic linguistic groups in the Indo-European language sphere. Should we now state that e.g. Irish people be ethnically related to Russians? Clarifer 09:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but Irish and Russiand might be closer related than Finns and Sami. 惑乱 分からん 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
According to Niskanen 2002 and Cavelli-Sforza 1994's genetic distance calculations most of the Finnic-Ugric populations are closer related to the Irish and the northern Europeans than the Saami.

Do not call the Finns FINNS, Call them Somi. Unless you call the Sami Lapps. The Somi call themselves Somi. Ericl (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No we do not. We call ourselves as suomalaiset in Finnish and Finns in English.--130.234.68.225 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The indigenous people of Scandinavia?

  • Sure, even if most of them are living like modern scandinavians, some of them are living in a more traditional way. But were they really the first people to settle down in Norway or Sweden? At least in Norway that is a big question as it might as well could be that it is the ethnic Norwegians that arrived Norway first. If indigenous people means first, then Norwegians should be defined as this too. But for some reason western people is never considered as indigenous people. Maori people are seen as the indigenous people of New Zealand and the inuits as the indigenous people of Greenland, but the Icelanders are not considered as this even if they have lived on their island at least as long as the maoris and inuits have lived on theirs. It all seems like it is considered impossible to be defined as indigenous people if you are white, and why is that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipporoo (talk • contribs) 24 February 2006
The Sami were probably not the first group to inhabit their ancestral lands of Northern Scandinavia, other peoples were there long before. However, these peoples are all gone, and the Sami are undoubtedly the oldest group present in large parts of Northern Scandinavia, notably all of Finnmark and Troms, the Finnish province of Lapin Lääni, the inland of Nortern Sweden down to Jämtland and long stretches of the Norwegian provinces of Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag and Sør-Trøndelag. One talks of indigenous peoples only if there is another dominant group that has come in later and taken over most of the land, otherwise the discussion is of no interest. Like whether the Icelandic are the indigenous people of Iceland or not. They have their island all to themselves....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.84.133 (talk) 20 March 2006
Since the Saami was not the first group, they should not be referred to as "indigenous". The argument that "those people are all gone" is not correct. The popolation groups that were the first to settle northern scandinavia are the same groups that became Swedes and Norwiegans of today. The Saami are not the oldest group present i Northern Sweden and Norway at least. In these areas, they were preceded by the ancestors of Swedes/Norwiegans by 1 000 years acording to sources like Niskanen (2002). Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute here – what source do we have that the Sami were not the first indigenous group to arrive in Scandinavia? What was the name of the previous group of people who were there? To the best of my knowledge, those people do not have a name, or – they do not exist… They may have intermarried with a previous group, but I never heard them displacing anyone else. The Sami have existed long before the Norwegians and Swedes as they were late comers to Scandinavia. There is ample evidence that shows that the Sami were pushed further north over the centuries by the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns, and that they (Sami) are/were very isolated from the rest of other European cultures/peoples. The indigenous statement should stay as describes their status in Scandinavia. Dinkytown (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There are tons and tons of sources (see below). Please read the current historical, population-genetical and archelogical literature on the subject. It is in fact very well known among the experts that the Saami were not the first people to settle the areas where they live today. It is false that Swedes and Norwegians were "latecomers" to Scandinavia. The population groups that make up Swedes and Norwegians of today, first settled Scandinavia 12-13 000 years ago. It does not matter if a certain group "had a name" or not. Swedes and Norwegians are the decendants of these early groups (to an extent of about 80 % genetically, since this part of Europe was not that affected by neolithic immigration). These groups colonized current Saami areas i Northern Norway and Sweden first from the South-west, along the Atlantic coast and to the west of the receding ice (about 9 000 years ago). The earliest population groups that may have become the Saami, came - at the very earliest - 1000 years later. Most likely they arrrived several thousand years later. The indigenous statement reflects Saami nationalism. It is historically inaccurate and should be removed.
Some relevant literature:
  • Andersson, M. & Knarrström, B. (1999). Senpaleolitikum i Skåne. En studie av materiell kultur och ekonomi hos Sveriges första fångstfolk. Lund UV-Syd, Riksantikvarieämbetet.
  • Bergman et al (2004). Deglaciation and Colonization: Pioneer Settlements in Northern Fennoscandia. Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2004.
  • Chikli et al (2002). Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model. PNAS vol 99 (17).
  • Karlsson et al (2006). Y-chromosome diversity in Sweden – A long-time perspective. European Journal of Human Genetics 14, 963–970.
  • Ljungberg (1995). Nya fynd skriver om Norrlands forntid. Populär Historia nr 1/1995.
  • Malmström (2007). Ancient DNA as a Means to Investigate the European Neolithic. Doctoral Dissertation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala.
  • Niskanen (2002). The Origin of the Baltic-Finns from the Physical Anthropological Point of View. The Mankind Quarterly 63:2: 122-148.
  • Olofsson (2003). Pioneer Settlement in the Mesolithic in Northern Sweden. Doctoral Dissertation. Umeå University 2003.
  • Passarino et al (2002). Different genetic components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms. European Journal of Human Genetics 10, 521 – 529.
  • Sampietro ML, et al (2007). Palaeogenetic evidence supports a dual model of Neolithic spreading into Europe. Proc Biol Sci 274:2161-2167.
  • Wiberg (1999). Hamburgkulturen var först. Populär Historia nr 6/1999.
Khoios (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I will look into the sources that you provided here.
First, I want to make sure I understand your statement above: Are you are saying that the Norwegians and Swedes were in northern Scandinavia 1000 to several thousand years before the Sami were?
Aside from that statement, I'm assuming that you are taking the position of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory. If you are, that theory has its problems, namely that genetics does not imply cultural or linguistic continuity or presences. Dinkytown (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)



  • Is there any connection between the Sama and the Irish, Welsh, Scottish or Basque people?.These people have been proven to be untouched largely by the 20% of neolithic groups from the middle east that "invaded" Europe. Here are some links > [1] , [2] , [3] , [4]. My opinion, which isn't tworth much since I am no geneticist but i have taken Anthro 101 and the concept of evolution is that all of these people have been genetically isolated (from the neolithic migrations that contribute 20% of the gene pool of Europe) would be one of adaptation to the harsh environment. Of oourse there are always the oddball theories that people throw a wrench into the problem by exploring retarded alternatives...for instance the much debated origin of the basque in Northern Spain which have been found to be genetically similar to the that of the IRish, they use this information and assume that "OH! the basques must have migrated to Ireland and Wales and just stopped moving after that!" When in reality (according to what I have read) these are just the remnants of the original paleolithic population of Europe which 80% of modern Europeans trace their lineage back to. These peoples gene pools have been largely untainted for centuries due to their isolation. I saw the same type of stuff on the irish people discussion, lol.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weird Whodi (talk • contribs) 6 April 2006
Did you really mean to say "untainted"? An unfortunate choice of words when talking about genetic inheritances.--AkselGerner (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per 80.212.84.133 above, being the absolute first people to inhabit a region is not a prerequisite to claim or identity as an indigenous people - please review the content of that article for confirmation. That the Sami have claimed (and have acheived some recognition) as an indigenous people is confirmed by many observations and submissions made to international bodies such as the UN's WGIP, and is reflected in aspects of their legal status in the Scandanavian countries in which they reside.--cjllw | TALK 01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not correct. According to most definitions, it is actually a requirement to be the decendants of the first people that inhabit a region. This is so according to the definition by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), for example. The ILO definition is an exception that is used by Saami activists to justify the highly misleading claim of being an "indigenous" group. The term indigenous is highly misleading and should be removed from the page. Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don’t know what you mean by ”according to most definitions…” I would like to see some sources that claim that statement. There are many nationalists within Scandinavia that would like to discredit Sami indigenousness rights issues as they are in conflict with Sami land claim rights - a major issue, especially in Sweden. Here is an excerpt from the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), page eight, that you cited [5]:
Who are indigenous peoples?
The international community has not adopted a definition of indigenous peoples and the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition is necessary for the recognition and protection of their rights… (Dinkytown Comment: no one else can agree as to what 'indigenous' means, but that is not nessesary - they are to be protected). What follows is a brief overview of some of the existing attempts to outline the characteristics of indigenous peoples: (From: The ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)):
-- Tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations. (Sami fall into this category: Dinkytown’s statement)
-- Peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country… at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries. (Sami fall into this category: Dinkytown’s statement)
-- The Convention also states that self-identification (bold mine) as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply. (Sami consider themselves indigenous: Dinkytown’s statement)
-- Self-identification as indigenous or tribal is considered as a fundamental criterion and this is the practice followed in the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as in certain regional intergovernmental organizations. (p.9) (Sami consider themselves indigenous, and therefore - they are...: Dinkytown’s statement)
The UN indeed does address and recognize the Sami as an indiginious people, so your statement is false. Dinkytown (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The UN has not declared Saami "indigenous" on the basis of first settlement, but according to other criteria. The ILO 169 definition of "indigenous", that you cite, is the only one that does not include a first-settlement criteria of any kind. Saami activists knew they would not get indigenous status on the basis of actually being indigenous (since they are not), so they always refer to this, flawed, convention. No matter; If the Wikipedia article in any way indicates that Saami settled their current areas before other ethnic groups, Swedes and Norwegians, the article is wrong and misleading. The article does so by using the word "indigenous", since this means first-settler-people to almost all readers. At the very least, the article should make the distinction clear: that indigenous when discussing the Saami actually does not mean the Saami were the first settlers. Khoios (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The UN hasn't declared anyone indigenous, but has set up the indigenous criteria to allow the legal protections to be enacted by their respective countries. The government of Norway (where the majority of the Sami live) has accepted and signed ILO 169 in 1991 - the first one to sign it too! The UN, Norway, and the Sami consider the Sami indigenous by the standards that I described above, and that the "...Saami were instrumental in the formation of nearly all aspects of the United Nations that dealt with indigenous issues." [6] "Other criteria" is not mention in the UN language. What political source states that a "basis of first settlement" criteria is required for a people to be called "indigenous"?
The Sami are indigenous by any legal, historical and physical terminology - and I will dispute the idea that the Sami were not there before the Norwegians and Swedes... "Indigenous" is a very acurate term for the artical. Dinkytown (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


  • There are 136 Sami in Ukraine, of whom 3 speaks Sami language. (Ukranian census 2001)
In Ukraine of all places? Have they emigrated there? Jonas Liljeström 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine Stalinist deportation from the Kola peninsula... probably there are other enclaves too, Siberia??--AkselGerner (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How are Sami considered "not-white"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.125.84.179 (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Lapps race page

The Lapps race page was a historical racial definition of the anthropologist Francois. His definition does not necessarily agree with the current definition of the Lapps people. He defined them to have bear faces and be very ugly. This racial definition of a bear-faced, ugly people does not belong on the Lapps people page. The Lapps race page is a historical definition of race and shouldn't be merged with the contemporary definition of the Lapps people. -- Dark Tichondrias 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's the Lapp people (preferred name these days "Sami"), not Lapps...and second, it is the same people he's talking about. Hence this information belongs in the main article. It can and should be noted it's a historical definition. Nobody will think Wikipedia thinks this is a legitimate definition of the modern people. --Lukobe 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dialects vs. Separate Languages

Whereas this article states:

The Sami language is divided into nine dialects, of which several have their own written languages (orthography).

The article on Sámi languages states:

Sami is frequently (and erroneously) believed to be a single language.

In my opinion, the article on Sámi languages is correct and this one wrong and is tantamount to saying that Dutch and English are one and the same language because they had a common ancestor and can somewhat be understood if you try hard enough. Try looking up the same words from these vocabularies of the three spoken in Finland:

http://www.uta.fi/~km56049/same/

It is easy to spot the differences and it is undeniably easy for speakers of one Sámi language to learn another; however, this does not make them the same language.

-yupik

84.230.105.54 08:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Chernobyl?

i'm removing the obscure reference to the chernobyl disaster under "see also". Joeyramoney 19:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was a major effect (in parts of Sweden, at least) of the disaster. But not as "contamination of the Sami people" like the removed text said — it was the trade in reindeer meat that was heavily affected. As I recall it, Chernobyl fallout is still a factor to consider if you own reindeer. JöG 18:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox Church

Under the Religion section, I have disambiguated "Orthodox Church" to Eastern Orthodox Church. If someone has more specific information, such as that it should be Russian Orthodox Church, please change it. Thanks. Disambiguation link repair - You can help! --Iggle 07:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


The idea of an Asian ancestry, which the Scandinavians extensively promoted, is still found even in 'respectable' sources. It has to be mentioned, since this pathological science has affected the public perception significantly. --Vuo 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind mentioning it. I just don't thinkt the history section is the right place to put it. Also, I don't think I am the right person to write such a section or article. Labongo 12:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

Your article has automatically been given class=stub and reassess=yes ratings. [corrected text: --Ling.Nut 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)] Don't feel slighted if the article is actually far more than a stub -- at least in the beginning, all unassessed articles are being automatically assigned to these values.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:WikiProject Ethnic groups, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


The Sami sucked the borders freely until 1826???

I couldn't find the culprit for this change, but what was the original verb? -Yupik 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably "crossed." --Leifern 13:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That would work, thanks! -Yupik 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The Sami CROSSED the geopolitical borders that change over time when the Scandinavian countries tried to claim all of Sapmi or Lappland for themselves. After all, this is still Sapmi and the Sami people remain in their aboriginal

homeland, and no country can assume total power over them. The Sami are among the world's most "independent" aboriginal peoples who had accepted their countries or citizenship to whoever annexed their villages and reindeer ranges, but the Sami never completely abandoned their earlier identity, culture and ways of life. +71.102.32.144 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Binland

So what is Binland, and why is it not mentioned anywhere but in this article ?--Vindheim 19:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A very good question indeed. I have never, ever heard of it - and I've read quite a lot on Sami history. It might refer, to Biarmland, a region that nobody really knows where was any more but is traditionally considered to have been roughly equivalent to Arkhangelsk county in Russia or the White Sea coast of Karelia. However, how "Biarmland" turns into "Binland" is beyond me. The entry might even be a joke, as far as I'm conserned - I have never heard of it.

--Misha bb 17:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Binland" was just "Finland", unnoticed vandalism by someone. --Drieakko 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Recently from Finland"

There has been done vandalism in the Genetic History section due to ignorance or pure provocation. It appears at first as the article have been made more compact and maybe not so necessary information have been removed. Thats ok, however the sentences has been changed so it appears that the Saami recently came to todays territories from somewhere in Finland. This is higly incorrect and the genetic findings do not support this. The genetics dont support a recent arrival from Finland to todays Saami areas but rather a 6000-7000 year isolation on the northern shield.

I think the sentence intended to say that Finnish people came to Sapmi, and that some Sami people have been assimilated into the population in todays Finland. I have rewritten the sentence.Labongo 13:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This may, or may not, have been similar to what I just added, so just in case, I'll clarify what I mean: Saami habitation in Finland has been historically documented to have at some point extended all the way down to the south coast, but receded to present it's present "border" in the face of Finnish expansions. So, in other words, the Saami didn't come to Sapmi, rather Sapmi shrank. Also documented is Saami assimilation into finnish population along the way of that expansion/recession--AkselGerner (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


height?

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

How much is that in metres? I'm Sami and 1.70. I think that's standard, maybe a teeny bit taller than standard.--Misha bb 10:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Five feet = 152 centimeters. I believe that is too low, since the average height of the Samis has increased in the last 50 years. Perhaps you can find statistics about the height of the Norwegian population that is divided into regions, and thereby find the average height in typical Sami areas (Kautokeino, Karasjok)?Labongo 11:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Recent conscription records (2006) describe the average heigh for Finnmark as 176.7 cm and Troms 178.8 cm compared to the country average 179.9 cm. Source www.ssb.no —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
But as far as I know only 25% of Finnmark's population are registred as Sami. Of course, though, if you count everyone who could be registred as Sami I don't think it's to radical to estimate it at well above 50%... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.236.18 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

SAMI GENOCIDE BY SWEEDEN?

Do somebody know something about this topic?

First of all, please don't type your topics all in capital letters.

OT: It can hardly be classed as a genocide. The Swedish government financed race-biological institute which wanted to "save and preserve the north-germanic race". This was done by sterilizing lesser races in hope that they would in due time perish. The program hit the sami especially hard. Their graves were plundered to provide skulls and research material etc. But they were never mass murdered. Sweden, altough leading in the field (the NSDAP even sent people to learn from the Swedes), was far from alone. USA, Germany, Finland, Denmark, the list goes on, had simmilar programs. The only really notable thing in the case of Sweden is that it went on for so long, it continiued after WW2 (in to the 1970s if I'm not misstaken). --DerMeister 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lesser races" ? Jeez.
There was for sure etnic cleansing like operations by the Swedes that resultet in a movement of Sami northwards. Also in Norway it has been known that peasents chased Sami away into the more remote valleys and mountains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Well yeah but that was like the dark ages or during the time that the germanians settled scandinavia, thats hardly of any relevance. It happened all around the world and was maybe a bit unconscious racism. The sami were simply in the way of the germanians so they chased them away, not because they were sami but just because they were in the way. --DerMeister 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Famous people of Sami or part Sami descent

Could a list like that be added to the article? The people I can think of now would be

Morten Gamst Pedersen

Mari Boine

Renée Zellweger

Anyone else feel free to comment or add names

Drogo 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a list will probably be fun. One potential problem is that some people may (sadly) not want to be "outed" as Sami (one example is Lene Marlin http://www.radiotromso.no/les/6120.html). Other famous people (at least in Norway) are: Ole Henrik Magga, Nils Gaup, Helga Pedersen and Nils-Aslak Valkeapää. And, perhaps Balto the dog can be regarded as Sami :) 129.242.18.199 08:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

True, no one should be put on this kind of list if they do not wish so. Altough I know Morten Gamst Pedersen has said he's proud of his Samic roots recently, and Mari Boine is kind of no need to discuss as it is the Sami music she's famous for. Renée I don't know really, so maybe she should not be on the list. Drogo 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is OK to put someone on the list if there is a reliable source for the Sami origin of someone. The Renée Zellweger article claims that she partially Sami, so she can probably be added to the list. I suggest that you just start a list such that others can add (or remove) people from it. Labongo 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Zellweiger? Hah, I didn't know. Arthur Arntzen "outed" himself some years ago, so he should be there. Also Björk and Vigdis Finnbogadottir are members of an Icelandic club supporting research into Sami immigration to that country in the middle ages - but I don't know if they are descendants or just interested for some other reason.--Misha bb 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No joke about Zellweiger, even part of her geneology tree is online showing the maternal line going directly to the core Sami area in Deutnu in Finnmark, Norway. http://www.whildonen.net/slekt/p258.htm

I've put together and uploaded a image of the kind they have on the articles on Norwegians, Russians etc; showing well known people of Sami descent. I used the following criteria: (i) No more than eight people, (ii) well-known "outed" Sámis, (iii) try to make it span as long a period as possible, (iv) try to be conscious of including both sexes, (v) try to have as many regions of Sápmi as possible represented. Russia is missing, but apart from that all countries are represented and at least four Sámi sub-groups (South, Julev, North Inland, North Coast)... --Misha bb (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it had been deleted, I put together and uploaded a new one: All pics in this one were allready on Wikipedia Commons, so licencing's all right.--Misha bb (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lanugage history section

I have problems understanding the Language history section, and I believe most readers who are not linguist will have similar problems. Hence, the text must be simplified. Perhaps it can be merged with the Language section?Labongo 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just moved the entire section to Sami languages, since the content was not integrated into this article.Labongo 10:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization/ To do list

The current version of this article is a mess, and improvements are needed. Please add to the list suggestions for improvements (or any other comments):

  • Add references and sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Shorten History section.
  • Move the Genetic history section to a separate article.
  • Simplify Lanugage history section.
  • Extend Culture subsections.
  • Add information about Sami policy in Finland, Sweden and Russia.
  • Reorganize and shorten Sapmi section.
  • Add information about important Sami organizations.
  • Add a section about the anti-Sami movements.

(Initial list Labongo 11:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've got a general To Do list under my nick for Sámi issues. Please feel free to join in or even if you don't have time, to just add articles you feel are missing or need work. If the article exists, but you feel it needs work, please leave a comment (like Labongo's above) as to what you feel needs to be done with the article in question. Thanks! -Yupik 11:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sami's are Asian people(not european)

they believe shamanism and their god's name is "Tangı" which is derivered from Altaic "Tanrı" the sky god" . they are probably Finnic-ugric-and turkic descendents of asian people.--88.233.178.57 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If they live in Europe then they are Europeans. Genetically and linguistically they are also Europeans. They've been there for over 2,500 years. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well behold this: "The Lapps are of Asiatic origin and speak a language something like that of the Finns. They are a short, thick-set people, with Mongolian features, and spend their lives..." also from later on in the article (on the Skolt Sami "Scolt Lapps"): "Although of Tibetan origin, they are now part of Europe" (which answers the question above). The article also claims the Skolt are "almost certainly the oldest inhabitants of Scandinavia". Does any of this information have a place in an article? The book is (The Book of Knowledge, Ed. Gordon Stowell (1956). 81.105.100.178 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
No. You can find many discussions about the Mongolian/Asian origin theory above and in the archives for this talkpage. Labongo (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. It is good to see somebody has replied for once! (It always seems to take a long time to get an answer on English Wikipedia). Maybe if you can give some authority, you could see my comment at Talk:Fenni? 81.105.100.178 (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC).

(1) What defines an "Asian (non-European) people"? (2) Shamanism is a traditional trait of Sámi religion... And Norwegian religion, Swedish relgion, Celtic religion, Russian religion... (3) There has not ever been a deity called "Tangi" in Sámi mythology. --Misha bb (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea... the user is interested in the turkish people, so probably something along those lines.
(2)The user probably refers to the very widespread and surprisingly coherent shamanic traditions that span from tibet through china and all the way to the bering strait, and across that all the way to Greenland. To my knowledge Norwegian, Swedish and Celtic religions do not have clear shamanic features, aside from the shapechangings and travelling to the underworld/afterlife and back, but there is no sign in the north germanic religions of actual shamans. Russian folk tales do show some strong shamanic-type patterns but they are not religion per se, these mythological features have probably been borrowed from the indigenous peoples of the russian steppes.
(3)Ever is a big word, but it does seem like someone read some very old and erroneous research, there's plenty of that around.--AkselGerner (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoyedic_peoples , wonder why no one made this connection.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.114.222 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there is no connection. Samoyedic languages are a far far far far relative of Sami language, but ethnically there is no connection. --AkselGerner (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Samoyedic peoples wikipage that you cited may be using either 1) using sources from a different language, or; 2) just simply completely wrong. Everything that I know about Sami languages is that it is a Finno-Ugric peoples language. Both sites have a very simular map, but seams almost completly different subjects. Also the Samoyedic peoples site mentions nothing about Sami - which is why maybe no one made the connection. Dinkytown (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The samoyedic language group is entirely to east of the urals and are the other group of languages that together with Fenno-Ugric make up the Uralic language family. Fenno-Ugric of course divides into ugric (hanty, mansi and hungarian) and permic-finnic, and from there to sami follows the following stages >volga-finnic>samic-finnic>Sami So Hungarian is a closer relative to Sami than are Samoyedic languages. There may be some superficial similarities due to similar climates, but these are not proof of any close relation. BTW this "connection" has of course been tested, and it turns out negative in the genome comparisons.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

According to recent research in population genetics, the Saami are European (Caucasian) and the decendants of basically the same ancestral population groups that make up Finns and Russians. They are definitely not Asian (Mongoloid) to any major extent. Khoios (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sami people are an European/Caucasoid people, but it does not leave out the possible ancestral origins may been Central Asia in the Ural mountains, right in the continental and sociolinguistic boundaries of Asian Siberia. About 4,000 years ago, the Finno-Ugric and Altaic peoples lived in fairly close proximity to each other and some westernly migration to Scandinavia (present-day Finland and the Arctic region) taken place. Was there a small genetic drift between the Sami with that of Turkic-Mongolian peoples? It is proven they have genetic relation with the Basques of southwest Europe, perhaps they are related to pre-Indo Europeans of the British Isles and the Caucasus region (ethnic Georgians?), then you have scientists comparing the Sami with the Ainu people of Hokkaido in northern Japan. It's feasible the impact of Arctic climate had altered the appearance of the Sami people: cold weather can make people adapt by smaller height, husky/chubby body mass and some of their faces have the inner eyefolds, these ethnological traits evolved over generations of time. From a scientific standpoint, the Sami are descendants of pre Indo-Europeans from the south (the Baltic sea coast), nomadic Uralic Asians with genetic ties to Mongolians and an extensive range of ancient human ethnic groups over the course of European history. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lavvu article

In Talk:Lavvu there is a deadlocked discussion about whether the single-pole lavvu (enstangs lavvo in Norwegian), should be considered as a modern lavvu or a Bell tent. Also, the article tends to represent a very romantic, and from my POV, outdated view of the Sami. Comments from editors with some knowledge about the Sami culture would be useful. Thanks. Labongo 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami's outside Scandinavia

Are there statistics or estimates of how many Sami live outside Scandanavia? How about in the United States? Ffda (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are statistics for Russia. But I don't expect that there are realiable statistics for example for the US, since the criteria for who may be considered a Sami is vague and it was (and someplaces still is) considered a shame to be of Sami origin. I remember having read someplace that the Sami emigrants to the US was exposed to the same prejustices as in for example Norway and that they therefore choose to become Norwegian/Finnish/Swedish. Labongo (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
About ten-twelve years ago, a member of the Baiki staff (Mai Haumph) came up with a formula that calculated the number of people who immigrated from Norway (X), divided by the population of the counties of Nordland, Troms and Finmark (Y), and divided the number of assumed Sami living in those counties at that time (Z), and they came up with the number of possible 30,000 Sami and decendants of Sami living in the US and/or Canada today - Wheather they know it or not... I don’t off-hand have those XYZ numbers, but it was an honest attempt to get this number, and the potential of 30,000 Sami has since been battered around the North American Sami community ever since. It is also known that this number has many variables involved, but it was the first attempt in trying to come up with a solid number.
It was true that there was a great stigma associated with being Sami a hundred years, or so ago, but much of that attitude has diminished in North America. An example is rarely in American English is anything published as "Lapp" insted of Sami. Today there is far more curiosity than disdain about the Sami people and culture now. However, there are a few Norwegian-American hold-outs such as comedian Garrison Kellior who still don’t want to talk about anything of Sami, not even the word "lapp", but that’s another story…. Dinkytown (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. :)
Garrison Keillor is NOT Norwegian-American. He is of Scottish and English descent and he was raised in a non-Lutheran church. He did, however, grow up, attend college, and work in Minnesota amongst a plethora of descendants of immigrants from Norway, which is how his shtick was inspired. He has discussed this.
Some references regarding his ancestry:
1. A journal article from the University of Virginia
2. A short autobiography by Keillor, himself.
3. See Question 3 of the Official Prairie Home Companion Web Site's Quiz on Garrison Keillor
Best Regards, Peer Gynt (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Peer - Thanks for telling me. I actually just found this out last week - geeezzz... This is something that really hasn't been well advertised in Minnesota (or conveniently overlooked - for obvious reasons). This would be a good plot for a conspiracy novel (Garrison excluded, thank you...).
However, despite that Keillor is a Norwegian-inspired story teller – he has never (to the best of my understanding) mentioned anything about Sami in North America, which is disappointing since most of the Sami live in Norway and many Sami descendents live in Minnesota and elsewhere. I haven’t researched it yet, but I have never heard him describe Sami on his radio show. Thanks for the info. Take Care Dinkytown (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sami in the United States?

Does someone have information about Sami organizations or contacts in the United States or elsewhere, which may offer more information? Sincerely, PopularPR (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In the US there is a journal Báiki, a news blog Árran (Sami publication), and an organiztion Sami Siida of North America. I hope this may help. Labongo (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sámi collage

Due to claims of non-freeness against two pictures in the collage this image will be removed and eventually replaced with other ones. If anyone out there owns pictures of Valkeapää and/or Nils Gaup it would be great if you upload them on the wikipages for these artists and I will include them in a new collage. (See also discussion on famous people of Sami descent)--Misha bb (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I put together and uploaded a new one: All pics in this one were allready on Wikipedia Commons, so licencing's all right.--Misha bb (January 27 2009)

"Notable Sami and people of Sami Heritage" section.

I have removed the "Notable Sami" section as it is unreferenced. Below are the names of those who were included on the list. Note that the list is in disarray and not alphabetized and lacking any sources. Undoubtedly some of these people are Sami, or of Sami descent - but many seem to be included by mere guesswork. Please feel free to readd them if they are cited as Sami or of Sami heritage from a reliable source:

Thanks. Hopefully, some can be cited. ExRat (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why on god's green earth would you remove the entire list? Do you perhaps doubt that the majority of these people are of Sámi origin? These are mainly people who are known precisely for being Sámi pioneers in different fields. The only ones who - arguably - demand some referencing are the Americans Mitchell and Zellweger, whose Sámi background is not well known. All the others are self-outed people of Sámi descent (OK, I don't know about this Kompornollen guy, I've never heard of him at all). If you can argue that somebody in particular should not be on the list, please remove those particular names from the list and ask for references - or mark them with citation needed. Do not delete the entire section! Or do you perhaps demand a reference to prove that Mari Boine is Sámi? Or do you doubt the "Sáminess" of Norway's national attire wearing Minister of Fisheries? Or are you sceptical towards the Sápmi national football team? I'm reinserting the list, and hope for the future that you would limit yourself towards removing individual names and/or ask for references - instead of removing perfectly well known Sámi people. --Misha bb (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way the list is not disarray: I have sorted the names to reflect when these people lived. (Once again, I do not know how Kompornollen fits into this system - he was entered after I sorted the list. --Misha bb (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have found references to Mitchell and Zelweger, the two on the list whose Sámi background is not well known, and inserted them. --Misha bb (talk)
And now there's also a reference for Morten Gamst Pedersen. He's been interviewed about it couple of times, but I've noticed some people still want to not believe it. So here it is.--Misha bb (talk)
"Why on god's green earth would you remove the entire list?" - Because they are UNREFERENCED. As I stated, obviously some are undoubtedly of Sami origin. Wikipedia lists such as these have a habit of becoming unmanageable without references. All inclusions of Wikipedia should be cited with reliable sourcing. "Or do you perhaps demand a reference to prove that Mari Boine is Sámi? Yes, actually, I do! All list inclusions should demand a reference! "The only ones who - arguably - demand some referencing are the Americans Mitchell and Zellweger..." No, actually, all of them do. Also, they weren't deleted - that is why I placed them list on the talk page, so that they could be referenced. If you are going to place them back on the page, you could also take the time to help reference them or at least have sorted them alphabetically. ExRat (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Cleaned up, alphabetized and added a "fact tag" to the section. ExRat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to further discuss (i) the act of removing a section rather than inserting "citation needed" (ii) whether alphabetization is a better way of systematizing a section than listing people after year of birth. The list is up again, and using alphabetization is fine by me. I do, however, feel a bit baffled that you demand references for people who are known precisely for being Sámi pioneers. My question is, would you want a reference to back up that William Shakespeare was English? That's just about what you are doing when you ask for "evidence" that Mari Boine is Sámi. However, I want to end this as quickly as possible, in a constructive way, so I'm not going to protest that individuals listed, as a rule need references.
However, quite a few of the people listed here have surnames that in North Europe are exclusively Sámi surnames: Balto, Boine, Gaup, Juuso, Magga, Laula, Saba, Somby, Valkeapää. If you have one or more of these surnames, you are undoubtedly of Sámi origin. Demanding references for these would be like demanding proof that someone called "Hansen" is of Scandinavian origin. That leaves us with five listed individuals who are not referenced, and do not have stereotypically Sámi surnames: Arntzen, Laestadius, Kompornollen, Mathisen and Pedersen. I have now found and inserted references for all except Kompornollen and Arntzen. I have personally read the newspaper article where Arntzen came out of the closet as a Sámi, but I haven't found it online - so far. Also, I have not found anything on this Kompornollen person being a Sámi. Thus, I am inserting "citation needed" after Kompornollen and Arntzen - though as I said, I have read the article on Arntzen myself. Having done this, I will remove the "not citing its' sources" tag on the section - as now only two names on the list are not either obviously belonging or referenced. --Misha bb (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kompornollen is most likely vandalism, so I took it out. It has a suspicious form, and there's no hits on google that are not from here. It was added by an anonymous editor with no other contributions and with no edit summary.[7] --AkselGerner (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Spelling difference between Sámi and Sami.

I changed all the spelling differences between Sámi and Sami as Sami is the common spelling in English. I left the Sámi spelling if the word is within a title, such as Sámi soga lávlla, Beaivváš Sámi Theatre, and Norwegian Sámi Parliament. Comments? Fire away... Dinkytown (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sami genetic study issues and commentary

"Genetic History" section

  • I have been watching the Genetic History section of this article for some time and there are several red flags going up here on my part:

1) The inclusion of the paragraph by 201.53.61.233 has been lifted straight from this website [8]. It should be paraphrased rather than copied directly. It also should be correctly cited in Wiki fashion.

2) What does "...almost exactly intermediate..." mean? The website is an academic abstract and would need further explanation on this.

3) Explain "...shows that Lapps/Sami are slightly more than 50% European, Hungarians are 87% European, and Finns are 90% European." If Sami live in Europe, and have historically lived in Europe, then they are European. The word "Lapp" is archaic and derogatory.

4) All the paragraphs in this section contradict each other.

5) Most troubling is that there has been extensive scientific study of the Sami for nearly two hundred years - and much of it has been negative. The governments of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Germany have all used Sami studies to prove the "lower status" of the Sami in comparison to each of the respective countries. Many of these studies had justified and carried out forced sterilization of the Sami by the Swedish government - and worse, extermination by the Nazi's, who concidered the Sami on par genetically with Jewish people - and we all know were that went.

One should be very careful in describing scientific studies of the Sami, without the negitive description of this history, when there has been a long history of abuse. This section would be better served if this was explained further, rather than jumping on the 'Sami Genetic' fad... Because of the above, I have been tempted in removing the whole section, but I'll wait for a responce before I do. Dinkytown (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about the supposed "forced sterilization" by the Swedish government. A subsequent inquiry, be independent historians and very extensive, found that the sterlization programme had no ethnic dimension at all, and that it was almost entirely voluntary, only 9 % could resonably be called forced. And I have never heard of "extermination of Saami by the Nazi's". Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I will admit that the statement of forced sterilization presently may be out of line, I wrote that statement when the Sami genetics paragraph on the main page was pretty repulsive. The genetics paragraph was at the top of the page, describing the Sami almost like lab rats - with the cultural sescription described secondarily. The source that I used described that ‘some’ Sami were coerced into sterilization, however I have since found that it may not be a explict program directly against the Sami, as this has not been supported by other sources. The statement of forced sterilization is not in the main article.
That “9%” is/can be very misleading, there are many statements to the fact that coercion was often used for this sterilization program. Would coercion be considered force? Then you are wrong – if not, then maybe…
The foundation of the Nazi eugenics program was based on (among others) a book by Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding, called Life Unworthy of Life (maybe that’s a hint…) in 1920. In that book they describe a category of people called ‘social turmoil’. Jews, Communists, criminals, prostitutes – and Sami, were all included in this group and should be considered for elimination as they have ‘no social value’. For the most part however, the Sami were not targeted as a group until the end of the war, mostly because of the isolation, difficulty in confining them, and distance from the labor camp system in the rest of Europe. However, towards the end of the war, there were/are stories about the elimination of the Sami in Nazi controlled areas of Norway, though the Sami never suffered to the same extent as the Jews, Roma, and other groups. Dinkytown (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi 201... I didn't think there was any ill intent on anyone's part. Although I can appreciate the genetic study and its pursuit, a lot of people - including academia are missing the history and reasoning of past genetic/phenotype research. There is a good movie called "Give Us Our Skeletons (1999)" that describes this whole scientific research on the Sami - sometimes literally at gun point, to justify their own racial theories. I would be willing to incorporate that into this article, but waiting for someone to clean up the Genetic History section first. Thank you for your responce - Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I having looked at the material I definitely agree that such a section, if it need to be there at all, should be very carefully monitored and worded. The list of refs to genetic studies at the bottom should be probably used instead when relevant. Of course it is relevant to ask "Is there a "genetic history" section for Swedes? Or for the English? etc. etc.". However, since there are so many misconceptions and lies in circulation, I feel that it is probably wise to have something there, but it definitely has to be well deliberated so that it clearly addresses the problems, provides needed clarity and disencourages sensationalist gene-tripping. That still has to be done.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"...sensationalist gene-tripping" (LOL) - No one in the history of man kind has ever said that phrase - until now... Good point about the "genetic history" section for Swedes. Although there is plenty of sources for 'Sami genetic studies', it is from an outsiders POV. Most of the Sami POV is in oral history and very little in English and even then, only very recently. There is a good Sami film that I have called Give Us Our Skeletons which describes this whole thing from the Sami POV (with English subtitles). I am going to use that as a source for that section. Dinkytown (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Such theories formed basis for government sterilization campaigns against the Sami." I took that out, since I have not heard of such campaigns against the Sami. Norway and Sweden had such campaigns against the Roma (Northern Gypsy), but I've never heard about such campaigns against us...--Misha bb (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Misha - I will let you take it out for now, but I will dispute your argument. There has been a program as part of the Swedish eugenics and 'racial hygine' program that did target Sami, but not exclusivly and only one of several groups targeted. I am trying to find the time to included this section in there - have several sources, but its complicated in describing and need time to do so. The point of this section is that there has been a long history of study of Sami genetics - and much of it negative, to the loss of the Sami. Will descibe more later. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dinkytown. I look forward to reading more about that subject, it sounds quite interesting. If that really happened... Well, it probably shouldn't shock me but it would.
Here are some of the links I found, two swedish and one in english. The swedish race-hygiene programme ran from 1935-1975 and in that period 63000 people were sterilized, mostly women (numerically the biggest group is ethnically swedish social cases and many probably just depressed). I haven't found numbers on the impact on Sami, but I did find a source saying that in some cases the "justification" for the sterilization included mention of the subject being Sami. "Tatter" people however were much more often targeted, being the most suffering group in relation to population count.[9], [10], [11] --AkselGerner (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The links you provide are not reliable sources. You are completely mixing up your teminology. The years and figures you quote are all wrong and wildly exaggrated. Forced sterilizations were far, far fewer than that: only 9 % of the total. Additionaly, 65 % of these people were already declared legally insane. And forced sterilization only took place for a far shorter period. An extensive research inquiry in Sweden by independent historians found no evidence of any ethnic motives behind the Swedish sterilization programme, this specifically includes the Saami. [12] There is absolutely no evidence of forced sterilization programmes in Sweden targeted against the Saami. Any mention of that should be removed. Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Labongo

  • Labongo: first of all, welcome back...

- Second, what you just did could constitute vandalism. If you have a problem with the sourced material - fine, then you discuss it here on this page. You should know that by now...

- Third, you probably haven't read anything in this Gentic History section above. Had you did, you would have learned that this issue has a long history and discussed in detail by polite people who don't removed sourced matterials like you just did. You don't believe me? Ask AkselGerner (talk) above. He (and others) was a gentleman about this whole issue and one of the sources that you removed was his. You owe him an apology...

- Forth, this issue has been discussed on the internet in detail and has been well documented, the Swedish government has apologized and paid reparations/damages to the victims. Do your research before critizing.

- Fifth, in all the discussions with you, I don't recall you bringing any reliable sources to any discussion with me. I hope that will change in the future. Dinkytown (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • #1 thank you.
#2 and #3; no I have not read the discussion on this talkpage.
#4 this part has now been removed.
#5 it is the responsibility of the article text to provide necessary references.
The section still has two problems: (i) it has an uncited claim that either the fields of genetics, genetic genealogy, or phylogenetics has been motivated by racists theories, and (ii) it makes a claim that "There is a wide degree of distrust in the Sami communities towards genetic research" relying on a documentary movie. Having not seen the movie, what was the methodology used to investigate this claim? How many people were asked? How were the people chosen? Was there a control group? In conclusion, both are statements that should be removed from Wikipedia articles. Labongo (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Amazing... You admit that you have not read the above discussion about this issue, yet you write as if you have an informed opinion... You criticize a source, yet you admit that you have never seen it... - and yet you have a long history of not bringing *any* sources to a debate. That speaks for itself...
Regarding the source, if you are Sami, as you claim as your first language, you would have at least heard of one the directors name of the flick - Niillas Somby, who quite literally lost an arm and an eye, spent many months in prison and years in exile, fighting against the Norwegian governments policies against the Sami - policies that has since been changed because of his (and others) actions. You should do yourself a favor and get a copy of the film and then judge for yourself. Then you would know what I am talking about. Dinkytown (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the history and recent developments in sad "the Skeleton" history. I am not interested in discussing, nor defending, whether I know how to use references. However, it should be obvious that writing a section about the History of scientific research carried out on the Sami based on something you have seen in one TV-documentary is not a good idea. Especially a movie about that topic is unlikely to present a NPOV of the history and what the Sami people think about genetics. It is also a bad idea to place this in a section discussing recent results from genetics research. Finally, making generalizations and attributing these to the Sami, and any other group, about something seen on TV is never a good idea. So the subsection should be removed. Labongo (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Knowing how to use references is what Wikipedia is about. Bringing sources and examining them in a critique fashion is the basis of the Socratic method of debate. The source is not a "TV" documentry as it was not produced by a TV program or company. Even if it as, it is the message that matters - it was documenting an historical event. That subsection brings in a balenced and cited POV. The Communist Manifesto and Mien Kampf are not NPOV either, but both sources are a proper source in their proper context. Using Skeletons as a source satisfies the balanced part of the genetic/phenotype research paragraph, and demonstrates the historical importance of the event - an event that has been over looked during this whole Sami gene tripping fad.
The Sami genetic article was pretty horrible back then: Placed at the top of the page (most important issue of the Sami, right?), describing them in almost lab rat context - that is why there need to have an opposing Sami POV on the subject - and Skeletons was an attempt to do just that.
There is already a detailed and strickly scientific description of Sami Genetics on Wiki. This is the Sami People page.
Niillas Somby (interviewed in the film) is controversial, but within mainstream and not an extremist. His actions have changed Norwegian law and history in at least two ways: 1) his involvement in the Sami hunger strikes in 1979, led to changes in the construction of the Alta Dam. and; 2) he put pressure on the Norwegian government and scientific community to return the skulls of his ancestors to a proper burial - which they did.
The paragraph should stand for the above reasons.
If you would like to bring sources that describes "How genetic research on the Sami benefited the Sami" I would look forward to seeing it. Dinkytown (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Nazi connection to Swedish-Sami genetic studies

Sweden was neutral during WWII to indicate the Swedes (the government) also liked a few aspects of Nazism along with Democracy and Socialism. The Nazis' and Swedish avid interest in eugenics or overemphasis of "Nordic Aryan supremacy" in the 1930's are closely similar in nature. Nazi German state hospital officials visited the Swedish Ministry of Health in the 1930's and early '40s to examine the methods used to study the ethno-racial origins of and misconceive the Sami as an "alien" race to Europe. The Sami in central Norway were the forgotten victims of the Nazi Holocaust, more Sami were killed than Norwegian Jews (5,000 Sami vs. 600 Jews, due to a smaller Jewish community) and the allied forces in early 1945 hadn't visited the central regions (the British-Canadian naval brigade landed in Bergen), but only got word on the number of Jews in these prison camps. The Nazis in Finland focused on ridding off Roma/Finnish Gypsy and Slavic Russian residents accused of espionage for the neighboring Soviet Union, although the Finnish and Swedish-backed fascists emphasized the Sami and Finns are "Nordic Aryans" to a point the Nazi Germans admired the Sami of Finland. The nature of politicized race science is not an exact science, but can be corrupted to serve ones' own means (the Norwegian and Swedish Sami suffered, but not the Finnish Sami being equally Finnish in the eyes of Nazi-occupied Finland). The Swedish Ministry of Health along with sadistic genetic researchers should be held accountable on how they treated Sami patients in the early half of the 20th century. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Finnish Fascists? What, BOTH of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.254.246.249 (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone from 71.102.32.144 wrote bullshit. Please study history. Finland has been democracy since independence declaration in 1918. Finland was not occupied by Nazis and there was not even a proper Fascists party in Finland because lacking support from citizens. If you mean German troops in Northern Finland, yes - there were thousands of German soldiers but their goal was to keep Soviet Union outside Finnish borders and attack to Soviet city of Murmansk. This was so because in 1939-1940 Soviet Union tried to occupy Finland and nobody else than Germany gave support. Germany gave to Finland military support, and Sweden appr 10000 volunteers and material support. Thanks to them Finland is not part of Russia and is still democracy. If you say that Finland was allied with Germany, well, yes maybe in borders of Finland against Soviets but nowhere else. For example USA has never declared war against Finland. That's quite good proof that fascists never ruled in Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.237.92 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that 71.102.32.144 is writing made up stuff, but the case of Winter War is more complex; you might be confusing the German assistance during the Continuation War with assistance of different countries in Winter War. 1939-1940 Soviet Union indeed tried to occupy Finland, but Germany was in a bit of an awkward situation at the time due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and during the Winter War forbade transports of material support trough its territories making assistance of Finland harder. There is an article and some discussion about this on the Winter War page. --Pprkl007 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetic history section

I propose moving the Genetic history section to a separate article. I think the content is too detailed for an overview article, but still interesting enough for deserving its own article.Labongo 11:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • One such article already existed, so I have simplified the section in this article such that all the detailed information is in the main article. However, I was not able to rewrite the following portions: "The research indicates that 95.6% of Saami mtDNA originated in the Iberia refugia while only 4.4% is of Siberian-Asiatic origin (Tambets 2004)...Sami Y chromosomes indicate that 29.8% originated in the Iberia refugia and 58.2% originated in Eastern Europe (Tambets 2004). ". What is the implication of these numbers?Labongo 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No longer relevant, but I'll try to answer it anyway. As I gather, the Iberian Refuge was a region (in what is now spain) where plant and animal life found refuge during the latest Ice Age, humans too, from there human expansion in the wake of melting ice began, sparking the reinhabitation of middle and northern europe. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother and to both sons and daughters. The Y chromosome on the other hand is of course only inherited from the father, and then only to the sons. So obviously there is evidence of the early reinhabitation wave, but also of two different genetic influences, a small amount of siberian-asiatic on the female side, with traces of no other group, while on the male side there is a large amount of genetic influence from a group from eastern europe. I don't know how those have been analyzed but the (too) obvious analysis is that the trans-uralic people were the ones that brought the proto-samic-finnic language and that the eastern european group would be responsible for proto-baltic and/or proto-germanic language influences. But the DNA samples are not a "mixture", the genes of every individual competes with the genes of their fellows, so a single woman just happening to have many daughters that survive to have many children of their own could have a big impact on a small population, and similarly (but with less hardship) for men.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Scientific study and official declaration seem to conflict each other's political stances on what makes a race, ethnicity or determination of origin of peoples. The Sami are once thought to be related to Mongolians, then was officially declared "wrong" or erroneous, and still came up with varied explanations on the Sami's different anatomical appearance. The Sami lived in southern Scandinavia first, then about 4,000 years ago came the Indo-Europeans (Swedes) and finally, the modern Finns around the Gulf of Bothnia.

In the 1970s & 80s, most social scientists and anthropologists discarded the three-race (or four including Australoids) theory, therefore black/Sub-Saharan Africans and in the U.S., African-Americans cannot be a "race" after all. In the year 2009, most educated or right-thinking people don't view black people a "race" except a "black/African" American identity remains deeply intact apart from white people or the Euro-American majority.

At the same time, these ethnogenetic experts condemned any grouping of Jewish people as a "race" separate from Europeans or Caucasians after close examination, but now the stance is being reviewed by new evidence of "Jewish genes" found in Israelis, Ashkenazis, Sephardis and Indian Jews' own mitochondrial mtDNA, and "Kohen genes" in an elite of Jews (Cohens) of a genealogical related ordained rabbis passed down by the patrilineal line.

The Sami remains a puzzling note in some fields of ethnogenetic research, and that the Sami are the oldest living ethnocultural group of Europeans with a high degree of distinction from their newly-arrived Indo-European/Germanic neighbors. They are compared with the Romanies or "Gypsies" that term is false or deragatory, since it was confirmed they aren't of Egyptian origin, their ancestors were nomadic Afghan tribes hailed from northwest India in Asia about 800 years ago to arrive in Europe. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

African Facial Features

I have noticed many northern Europeans in Scandanavia have African facial features. Something is up. Are/were these people origianlly African? Would their features put them in the negroid catagory since many like to put black people with 'white' facial features in the white catagory?--71.235.94.254 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:no original research.--AAikio 05:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to bring this up again. I've noticed that among the Sami people, facial features tend to be roundish with a less prominent nose bridge. Is this a correct assessment or is there a lot of diversity among the Sami people? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it has anything at all to do with Negroids. They possess such features due to their partly Mongoloid ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.4 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

human beings can exhibt all kinds of facial features whether it be european east asian west asian sub saharan african ,south east asian ,north african the old early anthropolgy dogma has been cast aside and the only ones who want to keep it going are fringe neo nazis and the racist afrocentrics who troll the world in search of culture theft--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have distant relatives in Northern Africa (i.e. Amazigh or Berber peoples), the Sami can be an even earlier genetic population base from the Mediterranean coastline aboutr 6,000 years ago. Are the "African" traits more of an "Australoid" or "Dravidian" subtype from southern Asia? Also discussed among scientific circles is about the origin of the Ainu people of Hokkaido, Japan are probably Australoid, not Caucasoid and Mongoloid. The Ainu alike the Sami highly intermarried with newly planted settlers from neighboring lands over hundreds or thousands of years, despite genetic research contends on the uniqueness and rarity of certain genes by studies of haplotypes in the Sami people. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gene obsession?

Referring to, f. ex. the "mongoloid" debate above, Why is it so interesting to classify us in some "race"? There is no such thing as human races. There is only genetic variation. Of course, it is possible to identify some "common traits" in ethinc groups but these are all stereotypics that meany members of the group deviate from - increasingly so as globalization goes on. I know about Sami who have dark skin and curly hair, I know about Sami who are so tall they're closing in on two metres of height. I know about Sami who have big, non-slanted eyes.

Why is it so interesting to know the average physical features of the Sami? In the thirties, forties and fifties they measured our skulls at gunpoint, today they map our genes. What I want to know is, do the English have to put up with this? --Misha bb 10:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article gives a fair scientific treatment of the genetic history of the Samis. It also debunks the "mongoloid myths". I don't see any harm in adding information about the average physical measurements, but I don't think there exists any reliable recent sources. My point is that, although the information may seem to be similar to the race theories in the 1930s, the interpretation is different.Labongo 11:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm more talking about what's going on on the discussion page. I'm all good with the entry in itself, as it is now. - Misha BB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.240.157.31 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
There is probably a large coastal sami population that has "become" norwegians over the centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XiXaXo (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
To debate on the racial origin of the Sami is compared to modern-day interpretations and debates whether or not there's a Jewish race, African-Americans are "black" for any African ancestry (the one-drop rule), Hispanics are not a race based on language usage, Asians such as the Chinese or Japanese are not really homogeneous, if Native Americans lived in the North American continent longer than once thought, and if Arab-Semitic genes contributed to the European Caucasoid race. One of those endless arguments about the Sami has generated some heated controversy and produced offensive racial theories. Now has the human genome project finally confirmed that 99.99 (100) percent of human beings of all races, colors, ethnicities and nationalities are indeed homo sapiens modernus? + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gene Wars reference"

I noticed someone added the "Gene Wars" article to the genetic history section as some kind of better explanation for the description made. The article is not enlightning the subject, but sturring up that there is supposedly political agenda behind the inclusion of this section. Almost all references are at the link section for those who want to read further to make up their own mind about the findings so far.


Race theories in History section

I have removed the two paragraphs below from the history section because of two reasons. First, I find them to be too obscure to be included in the summary of the history of the Sami people. Second, I think the history section is too long considered that there is a seperate article for Sami history. I have not moved these two paragraphs into a seperate section or article since I am not sure whether they should be included in the Sami people article or be in an article of their own (race theories of the 18th century or something like that). Personally, I favor the last.

Removed paragraphs:

Historically, there have been theories about the supposed Asian origin of the Sami. In fact, in the early 19th century, the now-discredited theory of Ural-Altaic languages was believed even by the Finns, who arranged many ethnographic expeditions to Mongolia to find this theoretical link between the Asian and Finnic peoples. Stereotyped physical features, phrenology and other pseudosciences were used to "prove" the supposed Asian origin of the Sami. However, the theory did not hold water: no common vocabulary was established, nor did genetic studies show any significant links. DNA studies show that although the Sami are isolated from the common European gene pool, and share some genetic markers with other arctic peoples, they are unambiguously European. One should consider the cultural origin of the Asian origin theory: ideas of Swedish and Norwegian racial supremacy over the more Eastern, and therefore inferior peoples, used to retroactively justify military invasions to Finnic-speaking territories. These theories still survive in some Swedish and Norwegian neo-Nazi circles.

In A New Division of Earth, François Bernier (1612-1688), one of the first in a long line of racist scientists, defined the Sami to be a "species" with stunted and compact bodies, big feet, broad shoulders, and bear-looking, elongated faces. He called them very ugly, and considered them to be closer to animals than other human species.

Labongo 11:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The neo-Nazi white supremacist circles would believe in racially charged theories on the Jews, Arab people, South Asians and Mexican-Americans are not whites regardless of some Indo-European/Caucasian ancestry they possessed in addition to genetic haplotypes, different national origins and historic migrations in various places throughout their histories. The Sami are another example of the diversity of mankind, but little has been shown to prove they are related to the Han Chinese people, and more in relation with the Basque people. Same logic applies to the Ainus are not Caucasoid, the Basques are closer related to the Berbers than the biblical-era Philistines (nor is the case of Indo-Bulgarian "Balkan Egyptians" who are really Romanies), and Germanic-Celts are not Anglo-Israelites (or the "real Hebrews") in some Christian Identity movements in the USA. Genetic patterns in each one case study of those peoples shown otherwise and the theories were debunked or discarded, like the Nazi racial dogma were erroneous on what made one person "Jewish", a group identified mainly with religion for 2,000 years and the majority of European Jews are distinct from Oriental Jews in the Middle East. In contrast, the Sami people do not have the exact genetic profile like the Yakuts in Siberia nor the Inuits in Greenland. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed sterilization programs section

After some thought, I removed the sterilization programs citation as the information sources used are not replicated in other sources about the subject. The sources used eluded to the, but danced around the subject. This source used is suspect. Dinkytown (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is correct. An extensive investigation has shown that there was no ethnic selection/racial preference within the Swedish sterilization programme (rather, it targeted the mentally ill, like in other countries). Khoios (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem Khoios - The reason why I removed them was only that I am suspect of the sources presently. I'm still seeing other sources that this claim this but they may only be mirroring the original. What source did you find in the 'extensive investigation'? I do admit that if they did target the Sami, it was probably only by the individual examiner, rather than a full blown program from the Swedish government - take care... Dinkytown (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper term is LAPPS

Unless you use the term SAOMI for Finns, NORSK for Norweigens and SVENKA for Swedes.

Ericl - Your statement is your own POV - and not any stated fact. If Finns, Norwegians and Swedes consider their names derogatory, what is their prefered names? There isn't any. "Lapp" for the Sami is considered derogatory as described in the article. Would you still consider African Americans/Blacks to be called the "N" word? That's considered derogatory also.
In addition, there are no "Lapp" Councils, "Lapp" Parliaments, or "Lapp" Siidas that are run by the Sami. Even in the Norwegian Constitution they use the words "Sami ethnical group" (den samiske Folkegruppe).
The use of "Lapp" should not be used, as everyone from the Sami to the Norwegian government considers it derogatory. Dinkytown (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some 10% still practice reindeer herding".

1. The number of Sami is probably between 85,000 and 220,000, according to the article. 2. There are no reliable figures, or studies, that can reasonably claim that : "Some 10% still practice reindeer herding".

Therefore,the article needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexington2 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I corrected that figure, the real number is between 85-135,000. Regarding the "10%" figure, that has been battered about by everybody, including the Norwegian and Sami governments. I found a citation that stated that there are 2,800 actively involved. I'm sure there are more figures out there that are similar. Either way, figures are going to be all over the place. Take Care - Dinkytown (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sami "Government"?

  • There's no such thing as "Sami government".
You haven't read the article - there are three of them... BTW: you should sign your comments. Dinkytown (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, Sami people don't have a country.Alien26 (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not what you said. "Government" and "Country" are two very different things. A regional, state, or city government dose not have to be a country. Sami have three different autominous governments within Norway, Sweden and Finland. Read the links. Dinkytown (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • They have parliaments, which by the way have little or no legislative power. A parliament is not a government. The term government suggests formal status and power that the Sami parliaments do not have, as they are primarily consultative organs for the national governments, in addition to being charged with the distribution of funds (from the national governments) to be used to promote Sami culture and Sami interests in general. Maitreya (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Maitreya - Here is Wikidictionary's definition of Government:
1. The body with the power to make and/or enforce laws for a country, land area, people, or organization.
2. A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory.
3. The state and its administration viewed as the ruling political power.
4. The management or control of a system.
5. The tenure of a chief of state.
For the above reasons, you are correct. I was using the generalized term 'government' as an elected representative legislative body (albet a very weak one) for a group of people. Until there is a Sami Expeditionary Force ready to enforce the will of the Sami People (hopefully not too soon), I'll give it to you - Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why the removal of this paragraph?

Anthropologist have been studying the Sámi people for hundreds of years for their physical and cultural differences from the rest of Europe, however in recent years there has been an interest in genetic studies of the Sámi as it indicates that the Sámi are the original people to inhabit not only Scandinavia, but possibly one of the earliest inhabitants of Europe.

User:195.210.193.43 - What is your reasoning, and why do you say its controversial? Dinkytown (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, at that time there was no source provided, therefore anyone could delete it. It's controversial because Sami look is not Caucasian, moreover anthropology and genetics are not the same thing.Alien26 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have a problem with the sourcing of the paragraph, then put a [citation needed] tag on it and open discussion on it. It is very bad form to delete something outright without first discussing it. If no one responds to the [citation needed] after a period of time, then it is acceptable to make the changes. There are several sources to it issue throughout the entire article on the issue and another page on the subject. The paragraph did not state that anthropology and genetics are the same, only that both study the Sami as subjects. Dinkytown (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources were always there, the only thing I did, put the footnotes back to the lead section. Lets keep it there to make sure people who do not read anything else than article intros do also get a chance to check out the sources. --Termer (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You did a good job on organizing the intro with the source. Looks good. Dinkytown (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Is Renée Zellweger Sami?

Leif, you claim that Renée Zellweger is not Sami - what is your source? Dinkytown (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He's sources are valid. Info is in info-no OTRS-queue. Laaknor (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
And what source is that? He is not providing any sources and "info-no OTRS-queue" is not a web address. Your source has to be accessible to everyone. Just because he (Leif) removed Renée from the list on the Sami Norwegian site [13] doesn't mean that it's true. Show a good source and I'll drop the dispute. Dinkytown (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Renée Zellweger's mother is Sami and father is Swiss. See: Swiss Immigration to the USA ISBN 3038232602 and Lone star @ telegraph.co.uk--Termer (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I can not give out information about what has been given in an OTRS-email (at least not public), but the source is valid, and confirms that Renées mother is not Sami but ethnic Norwegian, and lives in Kirkenes, where there are many Sami. Laaknor (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources are the basis of Wikipedia. If you have sources that will refute the statement, then they must be made public. A non-public, private email based on 'trust me' is not even close to a reliable source. Moreover, simply removing the reference while it is being debated is very bad form and - edit warring. Maybe she's not Sami, so far the references show that she is. Thanks Termer for the extra reference. Dinkytown (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No need for any OTRS, whatever that is. The references 49 and 50 are solid.--Misha bb (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Misha - Reference #50 is not the same link anymore (broken). #49 however is still good - take care... Dinkytown (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture, History and Intermarriage

I think there is perhaps an exaggerated emphasis in the article on the supposed existence of an "essential" Sami culture. There is considerable disagreement (in Norway, at least) between Sea Sami and Reindeer (Mountain) Sami about the nature of "Saminess", because Reindeer Sami are considered to have largely monopolized the right to define what it means to be Sami. The common understanding of what is Sami culture therefore tends to leave out Sea Sami culture, which obviously (regardless of any Scandinavian influence) became significantly different from Reindeer Sami culture due to their completely different lifestyles over several centuries.

Furthermore I think the article should clarify that there has been significant intermarriage between (primarily) Norwegians, Sami and Kvens (descendants of Finnish immigrants) over several centuries, particularly in Troms and Finnmark, making it difficult to categorize a large portion of the population along simple ethnic lines, the same way it would be impossible to categorize much of the U.S. population as exclusively German, Italian, Irish, English, etc. In fact, as a result of intermarriage over several generations, many Northern Norwegians don't know much of their ethnic background. In practice, this means that "ethnicity" is often primarily a question of how individuals and communities choose to define themselves. Obviously, in many cases this has meant a preference for the label "Norwegian", both because it is quite simply easier to be part of the majority and because identifying with the state/citizenship is perhaps more meaningful than identification based on blood for people of mixed ethnic background (again, the U.S. serves as a good example). As a result, a cause of tension in recent years/decades has been a tendency by some Sami (primarily in the core Sami areas) to insist on something akin to a "one drop rule" in terms of defining Sami ethnicity (in part because Norwegian government policy provides an incentive for Sami to inflate their numbers) while at the same time insisting on a much narrower definition of Sami culture and "real Saminess", based exclusively on Reindeer Sami culture (or, in practice, the culture of communities in the "core" Sami areas).Maitreya (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maitreya, I couldn't agree with you more and you made your case very articulately. If you can incorporate your wordage in a separate section, say 'Sea Sami and intermarriage', or anything else, it would add a lot to the article. I know among the North America Sami immigrants this issue has been talked about, although it never has divided us. We had a visitor from the reindeer herding regions of Sapmi come to North America as a guest (one of many) a few years ago and she told us that "you are NOT Sami" because we didn't herd reindeer. That was our introduction to the issue. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lapp

In English, at least, Lapp is an alternate name. It is perhaps less used than it once was, but I'm fairly certain it is still by far the most familiar term for the Sami, and in English it certainly has no derogatory connotation - it's just what the group has been called. Notice for instance the OED, which takes no notice of any supposed negative connotation to the term. It ought to be presented in the introduction simply as an alternative name. That it is apparently considered offensive in Scandinavia is a matter for later on in the article - and, indeed, the issue is dealt with admirably in the section on the name. It's worth noting, though, that the idea that "Lappland" or "Lapp" is offensive is one that does not even seem to be universal among the Sami - the very article which we cite as the source for the claim that "Lapp" is derogatory features a Sami parliament member saying "I personally don’t find the term Lappland to be negative." Our source for the contention that the term is offensive appears to be a single member of the Norwegian Sami parliament quoted in a Norwegian newspaper from earlier this year.

Beyond that, I'd be interested in knowing what exactly is offensive about the term "Lapp." It's obviously an exonym, but there's plenty of exonyms that are not seen as offensive - "Hungarian," "Finnish," "Welsh," "Basque," "Greek," "German," and "Dutch" all come to mind. All we have in the way of explanation for why the term is seen as derogatory is that it's not what the Sami call themselves. john k (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  • There are several reasons to downgrade the word lapp rather than as an alternative to Sami. First, since the early eighties there has been a grass roots cultural movement within the Sami to describe themselves on their own terms - and not by outsiders. There is plenty of precident for this: Native American from Indian, Dakota for Sioux, Inuit for Eskimo, African-American/Black for Negro, and so on. Word terminology is very important for any people in how they view themselves and how others view them. Very few Sami call themselves lapp, and if they do, they are only the very old. Second, lapp was used by outsiders during the Norwegianization and Finnization programs on the Sami, which had been highly distructive to their culture. In short, lapp is a colonial word and is alien to the Sami. Third, the origins of the word is derogatory, regardless of how its used today. The OED that you quoted does describe the word as derogatory as the origins of lappe from Swedish is described as a "simpleton" and used as "...a term of contempt". Forth, no serious academic sources today use the word lapp as they recognize that it is archaic and derogatory. You will not find a college course on lapp studies, only Sami Studies. Fifth, within all the major Scandinavian cultrual organizations in North America such as the Sons of Norway, the American Swedish Institute, and FinnFestUSA, they have all since dropped the word lapp at least fifteen years ago and the vast majority of those people involved (tens of thousands of members) use the word Sami. This took many years and a lot of educational efforts from Baiki and Arran journals, and the Sami Siida of North America for this endevor. Sixth, no Scandinavian government wordage uses the word lapp to describe the Sami anymore, as they recognize it as derogatory.
Regarding the OED's citation; The OED is a good source, but they are behind on updating the word terminology on this one. They are well known for not being on the cutting edge of what is really out there.
Because of the above, it is very important to put the term lapp to rest and not to give it any equal crediblity as an alternative to Sami. If you object to the word derogatory, the word pejorative can be used as an alternative. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep it simple and straight to the point, calling the Sami people "Lapps" in any language is as ignorant as calling black people "Negros". And there is nothing new to that some people keep claiming "Lapps/Negros etc. certainly has no derogatory connotation - it's just what the group has been called"
Further information: http://www.rsdb.org the Racial Slur database
--Termer (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is worth noting that in the United States, at least, the original peoples still frequently called themselves Indians. There was an attempt at some point to claim this was derogatory, and to replace it with "Native American," but the Indians themselves still call themselves Indians, and "American Indian" is certainly not a derogatory term. Beyond that, I'll notice that we seem to have an article called "Eskimo" which apparently covers both the Inuit and the Yupik, and our Inuit article notes that the term "Eskimo" is actually used in Alaska to refer to both groups, and is preferred to "Inuit", which is mostly not used in Alaska. The claim that Sioux is no longer used seems even more dubious - our article about the Sioux is, shockingly enough, located at Sioux. So, aside from Negro, your comparisons to North American examples seem to be largely inapposite - all the terms which are supposedly offensive are, in fact, in common use, at least in the United States (Canada is a bit different, I think). The racial slur database is in no sense a reliable source. So, anyway, I'm willing to concede that the term "Lapp" is sometimes viewed as offensive, and that "Sami" is now the preferred term; that Sami should be the location of the article; and that the fact that "Lapp" is sometimes viewed as offensive should be mentioned in the article. I see no reason to immediately present the term as offensive. Note another comparison - Romani people - which mentions "Gypsy" as an alternative term in the introduction, and then later mentions that it is sometimes considered pejorative. I think this is a better model for this article than the current arrangement. john k (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
in the United States the black people still frequently call themselves "Negros" or even "Niggers", it doesn't mean that anybody else, not to mention an encyclopedia should do it. There are appropriate references in the article and it is explained under the footnote that "Lapp" is considered offensive. If you really think that it should be also underlined in the article body, I don't see the necessity but than again wikipedia should educate it's readers. So feel free to use the citation: [14]

The Sami used to be known as Lapps. This tern, however is deemed somewhat derogatory and offensive. The word "lapp" means a patch of cloth used for mending, suggesting poverty and tattered wear. So Sami is the more acceptable term to use today.

--Termer (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

PS.The book above gives you a kind of nice interpretation for the meaning of "lapp", "dustrag" would be probably much more direct translation.--Termer (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, "nigger" has been considered a very offensive term for at least 150 years or so, if not longer. The same is absolutely not true of "Lapp," which was the universal term in English until quite recently. Moreover, the term "nigger" is, at this point, used in English solely in order to cause offense. Nobody learns this term as a generic name for black people and then is surprised to discover that it is taken to be offensive - it is a racial slur. Lapp is not the same at all - it is the term almost all of us native English speakers learned as the name for the ethnicity, and was universally used in English until quite recently. "Negro" might be an appropriate comparison, and I might be willing to consider that on the merits if your immediately going to the other word as an appropriate comparison did not make me doubt that you are making much of a good faith argument. As to that, I'll just say that "Negro" has been out of fashion as the appropriate term in English for several decades now, whereas Lapp seems to have only begun trodding that path recently. And, even so, "Negro" is not itself exactly a pejorative term - it's more archaic than it is actively offensive. Beyond that, the etymology you give seems entirely dubious. From rummaging around on google with the etymology, it seems as though the etymology is unclear - it's not even clear if the word is a Germanic one or a Finnic one. Certainly there's no need for outrageous comparisons and so forth. If the term "Gypsy" is sufficiently inoffensive to be treated the way it is in the Roma article, then there's no grounds for not treating "Lapp" the same way. john k (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What part of derogatory don't you not understand? Have you read anything of the above? Why do the Sami have to defend and put up with this, and not, say the Germans ("German, sometimes called Krauts"; "Mexicans, sometimes called wetbacks"; "Italians, sometimes called Ginnie"; "African-Americans, sometimes called Niggers", Etc, etc, etc...) Yet you want to do just that... The word is bigoted, derogatory and colonial. It is no longer in offical use by anyone; Scandinavian governments, North American Scandinavian's (i.e. English speakers), acedemia, etc. I gave you all the reasons above, yet you are still focused on it. Maybe this is a personality issue on your part... Dinkytown (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do I not understand? Because your comparisons are fucking ridiculous. john k (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too john k! BTW. we have obviously run into a cultural conflict since "fucking ridiculous" is also considered offensive in the world I live in. Therefore I'm not so surprised any more that in your opinion Lapp is not offensive nor derogatory at the place wherever you come from. Luckily everything on Wikipedia is not about how f-rediciolus anything might be in someone's opinion but about WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Therefore the only thing that needs to happen, I just list a number of books here that say "Lapp" is derogatory, the fact that should be simply later added to the article.

There are hundreds of more sources available confirming the thing, so please just feel free to ask if you think more sources for verifying this would be needed. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this conflicts with what I have in the intro at the moment, which is that the term is "often considered pejorative." We could change it to "regarded as" rather than "considered," if you'd like - we shouldn't say it is derogatory, or that it is a slur, because, in English at least, it is not usually intended that way. I don't really care about pejorative vs. derogatory, if you feel strongly about it. What I thought was "fucking ridiculous" was not the idea that the Sami don't like the term "Lapp," which I have been willing to concede for some time. It is the idea that use of the term is in any way comparable to "nigger." The latter word is one that is only used to cause offense. The term "Lapp" is frequently used by people who don't know that it is thought to be offensive, especially in the English-speaking world, where we don't come across too many Sami to tell us that they think the term is offensive. The term "Lapp" ought to be mentioned as early in the article as possible, and bolded, because it is actually a much better known term to English-speakers than "Sami" is, and we want our readers to know what the article is about. If we want to say that it's pejorative, I'm willing to accept that, but "Lapp" really should be mentioned and highlighted in the introduction. john k (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
To go further, and perhaps address your ridiculous comparisons above - there is virtually nobody who thinks that "Wetback" is the proper name for Mexicans, or "Kraut" for Germans, or "nigger" for African Americans, or "kike" for Jews. These terms are racial slurs - they are used to cause offense. "Lapp" falls in a completely different category, with terms like Gypsy, Hottentot, or Eskimo - exonyms which are considered offensive, but which are not solely slurs. These terms need to be mentioned prominently in the article because they are often the only way by which ignorant English-speakers identify the ethnic group in question. The purpose served by saying "Sami, also known as Lapps" is that a lot of people are vaguely aware of who the Lapps are that haven't ever heard of the Sami. There is no comparable purpose served by your examples of offensive openings. john k (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
ETA: Looking now, I see that the most ridiculous comparisons were not made by you, Termer, but by Dinkytown, and I apologize if I implied that you made them. john k (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
For my eyes your opinions john k can only be explained with WP:BIAS, so called "systemic bias"; in your words The term "Lapp" is frequently used by people who don't know that it is thought to be offensive, especially in the English-speaking world, where we don't come across too many Sami to tell us that they think the term is offensive. The reason I compare this kind of argument to the use of "Nigger", as someone who has first hand cultural experience from living-working long term, starting from the East coast of Asia, all the way the West Coast of the US and Europe in the middle. I've heard similar arguments in countries "where they don't come across too many black people to tell them that they think the term "Nigger" is offensive".etc And I do think that in the sense the comparisons by Dinkytown above are not ridiculous at all.
Now, it would be important to keep in mind that this should not be about my or your or anybody else's opinions, nor about if "the Sami think Lapp is offensive"; But only about how are things pr WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Now, I've provided a number of sources that clearly say "Lapp is a derogatory term". In case you do have any alternative sources that claim anything different, please do not hesitate to come up with the secondary sources and the conflicting verifiable perspectives can be listed in the article happily next to each other pr. WP:NPOV. Until you haven't provided any sources to back up your opinions, sorry but you don't have a case. That should be fair enough! So please feel free to cite any reliable sources that are in conflict with the ones I provided above and the whole thing can be spelled out in the article accordingly.--Termer (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have certainly met Europeans who do not realize how offensive the word "nigger" is, and I'd imagine Asians are likely to be worse. But there is nobody who speaks English fluently who doesn't know other words for the same thing. Furthermore, "Lapp" was, until very recently, the appropriate English word for this group. There was no other word. "Sami" was completely unknown in English. "Nigger" was never the appropriate English word for Black people. Kraut was never the appropriate English word for Germans. There might be English-speakers who don't realize that "Kraut" is offensive to Germans. There are no English-speakers who are not familiar with the term "German." There are lots of people who don't know there is another term for Lapps. That's the point. We want people to understand what the article is about. What opinion do I have to back up with sources? That there's a lot of English-speakers who are only familiar with the term "Lapp" and haven't heard of "Sami" before? Do you really dispute that? I am really trying to be reasonable here and meet you halfway by including a prominent mention of "Lapp" being seen as offensive. You seem to be insisting that readers have to go well below the first screen of text to find out that the Sami are actually the same people as the "Lapps" whom they're more likely to have heard of. Again, I am not disputing that Lapp is viewed as offensive - although the citation provided in the article for that claim is pretty weak, and ought to be improved. Beyond that, let me just say that there's plenty of academic sources that use the term "Lapp" - a page from Minnesota State University, a page from the University of Kent, a page from Georgia Tech, a page from Harvard. There is just absolutely no comparison with the racial slurs Dinkytown referenced above - I challenge you to find any use of "Kraut" or whatever that is anything like these usages of "Lapp" that I point to above. john k (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it would be reasonable for me to go on and start writing personal essays on "Nigger" and "Kraut" vs. "Lapp" on this talk page. The only thing I'm saying: Not knowing that "there is another term for Lapps" and that "Lapp is in fact derogatory and offensive" is just not a good enough argument. I mean, few centuries ago people didn't know any better and thought the Earth was flat. So should an encyclopedia follow what do the people know or should an encyclopedia actually educate people? Since you are not willing to come up with any sources that would back up the things that you're saying; and I'm kind of used to get alternative views sourced for my content opponents anyway, here you go: It would be OK to say that "Lapp" is simply no longer used in Fennoscandia, at least not in public contexts where it might be taken to be derogatory. English has been slow to follow because the word 'Lapp' has no derogatory connotations for an English-speaking person--Termer (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Your proposal sounds excellent as a modification to the etymology section of the article. I do think that the current version of the opening - mentioning Lapp as an alternative name and noting that it can be viewed as pejorative, is necessary as well. The point is that the introduction to the article should be useful to the reader, and thus give common alternative names, which "Lapp" certainly is. If it does not, it can be confusing for many readers, just as it would be confusing for our article on Chennai not to mention prominently in the introduction that the city was formerly called Madras. The same conditions to not apply in the case of the other racial slurs you and Dinkytown have mentioned - no one will be confused if the introduction to our article on Germans doesn't mention the word "Kraut" - it's not like there are people out there who will be like "Oh, these Germans this article is talking about are really the same people as that ethnic group who I've always called Krauts." Replace "Germans" with "Sami" and "Krauts" with "Lapps," and there are a large number of people who will be given useful new information. john k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Happy New Year All - I am going to wrap up this argument, once and for all:
John k - First, you are right that the term "lapp", it may have been used in a non-derogatory form in English for centuries - that is true, but this is no longer the case. The English borrowed this term from the Norwegians and they have used this term in a superior / inferior context and have done so for centuries. The English no; the Norwegians, yes... However, the Norwegians have realized the errors in their ways and have stopped using this term at every level in their society, except only in a derogatory way. There was even an official apology from the King of Norway himself - and he used the term "Sami". I don't know where you live, but in the North American Scandinavian circles that I move around in, you rarely hear the word "lapp" anymore (5%?), and only then from a very ignorant person way, but instead use the term "Sami" (95%?). Of the many tens of thousand of English-speaking culturally active Norwegians, Swedes, and Finns that live in North America, they now use the term "Sami" and in a respectful way - this was not the case even thirty years ago. Things have changed greatly on many different levels for the Sami - and for the better. Academic sources, newspaper, radio, even children's books now use the term "Sami" which they didn't use even twenty years ago. In English, "lapp" had been used in a non-derogatory way for a long time, but the term came from the 'colonizers' - Norwegians/Swedes/Finns. Within the past twenty years there has been a social revolution about this term (among others). It has always been derogatory to the Sami but the English never knew about it - but thanks to the internet, they do now.
Second, yes, you are right that the Sioux, Eskimo, etc. pages still use those derogatory terms, but it is because they were not written by those peoples respectively. Wait for a few months/years when some Dakota learn about this site and start ripping apart the Sioux page - then you will see some fur flying. The same thing happened on this site about a year and a half ago when the Sami page were describe as nothing more than genetic lab rat oddities. We now have some Sami keeping an eye on this page and correcting the misinformation, that's (one of the reasons) why this page has been so combative. People are very defensive about their own cultural identity - especially if it conflicts with mainstream expectations.
Third, All the sources that you have put forward for your argument have serious problems. None of your sources are newer than fifteen years old, at a time when the Sami had a very limited 'voice' on the internet. One of your sources, made the fatal error of the statement: "It is even noted that Genghis Khan had written that the Sami were a people that he would never try to fight again". Anyone who knows anything about world history knows the stupidity of that statement (not your statement). Genghis Khan never came within a thousand miles/kilometers from the Sami...
Fourth, of all the sources that have been provided to you above, there is overwhelming evidence that: 1) "Lapp" is derogatory; 2) that lapp is/should not be used as an alternative to Sami, as there is no Sami or government institution uses that term; 3) as every major institution, cultural organization, and government has been using the term Sami and should be describes as such on Wiki. Termer is very correct about the volume of sources out there about this "lapp" issue.
Fifth (and last), There is no honor lost in admitting that you are wrong... I have done this myself - even on this talk page (look above). It is better to 'cut ones losses' and move on. This whole process is a learning environment for everyone. I would imagine that before these conversations you didn't know that "lapp" was derogatory, now (I believe) you do. I also imagine that you did not expect the resistance of the term "lapp" - we all learn from our inquiries. I have learned a great deal from these type of exchanges. But please see the error in your statements and lets get on to being more constructive in other issues - there's so much other work to be done out there. However... short of providing a truck-load of additional sources (and they are there), this debate is over. If this issue is not resolved now and if this debate continues, I will call a vote on this issue and will continue it through mediation and beyond to the very end - no matter how many weeks or months it will take, with the help of many other people. This is a serious issue for many people. Please re-read the entire above statements on this issue and lets come to a agreement and end this debate. Take Care and I wish you Peace... Dinkytown (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Dinkytown, I think I have admitted where I was wrong in the cases where I was wrong - I'm willing to accept that the term is viewed as pejorative and potentially offensive. I minimized this in my initial comments, and I was wrong about this. That being said, I absolutely do not believe I am wrong to insist that the term "Lapp" be mentioned prominently early on in the article. Once again, while English-speaking Scandinavians and those who have knowledge of the subject obviously are familiar with the term "Sami," there's lots and lots of English-speakers who have heard of "Lapps" and not of "Sami." We need to indicate clearly to these people that the article they are looking at is about the group which they have heard of as "Lapps." So, anyway, all I want to do is insure that the article introduction remains as it is now - that it includes a direct mention of the term "Lapp" as an alternative name for the group. I think wikipedia ought to be written to be useful for curious people who want to learn information, not to make sure that people who already know all about the subject don't get upset because of a bare mention of the term which was the primary term in English for the group until very recently. john k (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi John - okay, I think we have an agreement here. The objective that I was seeking is that the term lapp should not be an alternative, or on equal par to Sami because of the historical baggage associated with it. I would consider the issue settled if it was as follows:
The Sámi people, (also known as Lapps, although this term is often considered pejorative),[4] [Italic, mine]
Your wordage can stay but note the only changes are the "( )" brackets in the sentence. The reason for this is that it will down grade the term to "oh, by the way their were called lapps before, but now thats a no-no..." It also describes it as still in common use, but moves away from it to the more acceptable term. We can attach additional sources that support it later, such as what Termer added before. I just want to make sure that Wiki is on the curve on this, rather than behind it. How does that sound? Dinkytown (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me - I'm glad we've been able to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion on this - I agree that wikipedia should not be behind the curve about issues like that (although we do think we should be careful not to get out ahead of the curve, either), I just don't want our commitment to such issues to impair understanding for the average reader. I'm happy that we've worked it out. john k (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi John - I'm glad that we worked this out. I will make the above changes (or you can if you get to it first). There has been some minor changes to the intro during our discussion, but we can work around that. Oh, BTW, my above 00:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) statement was written while you sent your 23:49, 2 January 2009 statement so they were not a responce to each other, hence they may have been off-key. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be important to point out according to the source provided in the article that the term "Lapp" is not used publicly in Scandinavia due to it's derogatory meaning, (not that different how "Negro" or "Nigger" is not used publicly in the US unless it's done by Black comedians). Since English is basically a second language in Scandinavia, it would be very relevant to this article here I'd say.--Termer (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(Making a great effort to avoid engaging with the continuing silly comparison...) This would be fine to add in to the etymology section. I don't think there's any need to elaborate further than we do already in the introduction, where it might constitute undue weight. john k (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You may call it "silly comparison", I call suggestions to apply WP:UNDUE to the way the term is interpreted in the region of it's origin nothing more or less than cultural chauvinism. This is not an American encyclopedia but English Wikipedia. The language that is spoken all over the world including Scandinavia and over there calling the Sami "Lapps" would be the same as calling Black people "Negros" in the US. You don't have the WP article African Americans saying that (also known as "Negros", although this term is often considered pejorative) despite that in the rest of the world that's exactly the way Black people in the US are known and called most often, exactly like you claim the Sami are known as "Lapps" in the US.--Termer (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Termer, as I've said before, I think the "Negros" comparison is possibly apt, to a certain extent - it is the other comparison I find absurd. That being said, I think there's a couple of points worthy of note here, that distinguish the case. Firstly, as the OED can confirm, "Negro" is a term which a) does not refer specifically to African Americans, but to all people of Sub-Saharan African descent; and b) which is considered, as the OED puts it, "out of date and even offensive" in both British English and American English - the idea that the term is offensive is one which is common to all native speakers of English, not just to Americans. I'd also say that I've known a fair number of Europeans, including Europeans living in Europe, and I've never heard any of them talk about "negroes." I'm sure there are some people who use the term - both native speakers and otherwise - but it is increasingly uncommon. On the other hand, you seem to basically be claiming that people who view "Lapp" as offensive in English are largely limited to Scandinavia. There are hundreds of millions of native speakers of English, and hundreds of millions more who speak it as a second language. The combined population of Norway, Sweden, and Finland is about 19 million. That's a tiny percentage of the total number of English-speakers, and obviously a good number of people in those countries either do not speak any English or are not fluent enough in English for their usage to be worth considering as a basis for our understanding of English usage in general. And this tiny group is a) the only group of English-speakers who find "Lapp" offensive; and b) close to the only group of English-speakers who are particularly familiar with the term "Sami." Talking about "Negro" as an alternative term is pointless because everyone is familiar with the alternative terms and most native speakers, at least, consider "Negro" to be out of date and potentially offensive. On the other hand, mentioning "Lapp" is important because the vast majority of English speakers are not familiar with the term "Sami" and do not realize that "Lapp" is considered offensive. I really don't see why there should be such strong opposition to mentioning the very common alternate term in English in the beginning of the article, so long as we note that it is considered offensive. Note that all other encyclopedias prominently mention the alternate name in their articles on the subject - Britannica and Encarta mention it as an alternate name; Columbia] (admittedly, from 2001), uses it as the principal name. We do a disservice to our readers if we do not quickly inform them of this alternate name, which is much better known than the article's title. john k (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You know, you're clearly missing the point. Let me put it in another way. Perhaps it's just me but the thing about "Lapp" in the article currently just doesn't make any sense. The fact that "Lapp" is not an offensive word in English that's fine by me. Yet the the text says "Lapp" is considered "sometimes pejorative". What do you mean by that? What, where, when exactly is it "sometimes pejorative"? Does this "sometimes pejorative" mean that "Lapp" is considered pejorative on weekly bases or on every second Sunday? Instead, why don't you want to follow the sources that clearly spell it out: The term is considered pejorative due to it's original derogatory meaning and is obsolete in Nordic countries. At the same time the things that an average English speaker knows about "Lapp" and doesn't know about the Sami are not really anything that would need to be addressed here since it would be "common knowledge" anyway. So, the only thing I'm saying , please stick to the sources that are clear about "Lapp" instead of interpreting the facts so that the text in the article turns into a confusing statement that doesn't say anything.--Termer (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I said it was "often considered" pejorative. I'm not sure why you think this is confusing or ambiguous - are you a native speaker of English? The phrase "often considered" is used to mean that some would consider it as pejorative, while others would not, or that some usages would be pejorative, and others would not. The use of "often" rather than "sometimes" would suggest that the view that it is pejorative is a common one, rather than merely an occasional one. I don't see how this is either confusing or how it doesn't say anything. Perhaps Dinkytown could weigh in on this. I'm certainly open to other phrasings, but I don't want a lengthy statement about how it's not used in Scandinavia in the introduction - the introduction is not about how these people are called in Scandinavia, it is simply about providing the common English names for the convenience of readers. john k (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
OK I rephrase it once more: who exactly are those "some" who'd consider it as pejorative? If I go out in LA and say "Lapp" do "some" people consider it as pejorative? Or is it more like in Kiruna Sweden where should I avoid the term? We should write articles to readers who presumably don't know much about the subject, not to ourselves who are familiar with what's going on with it. And since the Sami live in Scandinavia, it is an article about the people who originate from the region, dismissing the facts why and how and by whom the term "Lapp" is "often considered" pejorative just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense because all this "some" and "often considered" is currently taken out of context. Also, everything relevant that I'm talking about might be much more clearly spelled out @ WP:WEASEL.--Termer (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm offering my two cents to the issue, how about thus:
The Sámi people, (also known as Lapps, although this term is considered pejorative to the Sami[4][5]) are the indigenous....
How's this? Dinkytown (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems redundant. Who else would it be pejorative to? To say it is considered pejorative by the Sami would give more information, and solve Termer's problem, but that seems overly narrow, in that it would be considered pejorative by other people, as well. My general feeling is that the implication anyone not knowing about the subject would take from the current reading is that it would be among the Sami and those familiar with them that it would be taken to be pejorative. This is a correct inference, and the details can be explained in more detail later in the article. john k (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
"pejorative by the Sami" only would be misleading and so far no source has been put forward that would say so. I'd suggest once again simply follow what do the sources say. We're not here to invent anything, our job here is to provide the reader with facts according to WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
How does the current phrasing diverge from what the sources say? john k (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Here you go "Lapps, although this term is often [who?] considered pejorative" vs. source 1 currently in the article "Lapp" is derogatory + 2nd source "Lapp" is simply no longer used in Fennoscandia, at least not in public contexts where it might be taken to be derogatory. English has been slow to follow + please feel free to use any WP:RS sources listed above or find some alternatives that spell out the thing. Other than that, this discussion has gone into circles; I don't have much to add since I don't wish to repeat myself too many times. Please just make sure that the facts in the article are clear and speak for themselves.--Termer (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Termer - do you really think that links to carefully chosen bits of text from a google books search is compelling to anyone who doesn't already agree with you? Obviously these two sources (Ethnologue, the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences) are going to be pretty good, but ultimately it is very weak to rely on a couple of out of context lines from what are surely long books as the evidence required to assert that the term Lapp is definitively derogatory. These sources tell us that some people (i.e., the authors of those books) view the term as derogatory - and I'm fine with derogatory instead of pejorative, if you want to put that. I'd like to have something more than material taken entirely out of context before we say anything stronger than that. And, again, I don't understand how the current wording at all contradicts the sources. It is a bit weaker, which seems appropriate, given the tenuousness of your evidence. And, again, "Lapp," when used in English, is not normally intended as derogatory. It certainly can be intended as derogatory, but given the small experience most English-speaker shave with Lapps, it would not normally be intended that way. It might also be taken as derogatory. This is rather more likely, in that, it would seem, most Scandinavians would apparently take it that way. But, again, most conversations in English do not involve Scandinavians, so probably most English-speakers would also not take it as derogatory. Now, as far as it goes, conversations about the Sami are probably disproportionately likely to involve Scandinavians, so it's probably still reasonably likely that use of "Lapp" would be taken as derogatory - but there would be many imaginable English conversations where "Lapp" would be used in a way in which neither speaker nor listener would view it as derogatory. So, again, I don't understand how the current characterization is at all inaccurate, or contradicts the sources you provide. (Notably, the IUAES specifically says that "Lapp" is still commonly used in English, and is, apparently, not taken to be derogatory in that language) john k (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't see anything new in your latest essay on the subject. In case WP:WEASEL doesn't really help you to understand what is this discussion all about, there is nothing else I can do.--Termer (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be clearer if you would explain what you think the first sentence should say. john k (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please cite the reference where the IUAES states the word "lapp" is not considered derogatory. Dinkytown (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I ever said that it did. I did say that they imply it's not derogatory in English, but this was perhaps too strong a reading of an ambiguous partial sentence - I'll withdraw the claim. By the way, if "Lapp" is so completely unused in Scandinavia, then why is Lapland still the name of a Finnish province? Anyway, I've slightly modified the intro - all our sources say "Derogatory" rather than "pejorative," so I've switched it up, and I still think that "to the Sami" is redundant - certainly "Lapp" would not be considered derogatory to the Basques or the Punjabis. I'm fine with removing "often" if Termer has a problem with it. john k (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence looks great with your changes - thanks. Are we all in agreement on this, or should we call a referee or some Sami UN Peace Keepers Dinkytown (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Sami Population Estimates

Kditstate - First welcome... The 'English' website that you mentioned is the offical website of the Norwegian Consulate so the source is going to be pretty reliable. The "60,000-100,000" number is only in Norway, not including Sweden, Finland and Russia. That number is including the Coastal Sami, which make up the vast majority of the Sami. I even heard upwards of 250,000 from a film kicked out by the Norwegian government about the Sami a few years ago. There are no reliable figures for the total census numbers so the numbers are going to be all over the place. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is not reliable atall. The website affiliated with UK goverment. The population of Sami people maximum were 25.000 in Norway, the total amount of sami people population in Scandinavia were 50,000 to 70,000. Those informations were written in 2002. This is not only the national public information. These have written in the page of links and many other country's dictionaries. The population of sami which living in Sweden, Finland and Russia have not estimated from 2002. How can they estimated the number of the population more than 500 percentages for few years and it happend only in Norway? What is the reason of show the more amount of population of sami only in Norway? I never heard the high amount of number. -- Kditstate (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The link Dinkytown posted had a typo in it. I fixed it. Cadwaladr (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the broken link - Thanks Cadwaladr. Kditstate, you are not reading the website correctly. The website is not a UK government website, it is a Norwegian government consulate website with nothing to do with the UK, other than being in English. As I said, you are not going to get solid figures on the population numbers. You may be only including the interior Sami and not Coastal Sami. The numbers are reasonable and reliable. Would you want the figure to be 25,000-135,000? Please don't change the figures on the page until we are done here. That is bad form and edit warring. Dinkytown (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
So why the information isnt exist in Norwegian languege? they wrote the information only in English. The website is made by Norwegian goverment but the website is for who can only understand English. Do you beleive they estimate the population 500% for about 5 years only in Norway. Have you ever heard the number of sami few years ago. Number is not reasonable. Why are you so addict on the number of population? The huge number make them to get in to civil war! You have to think about it. Do not only think about your ethnic consciousness--Kditstate (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Kditstate - Thank you for your compliment, but I think you give me too much credit that " I ", some guy named "Dinkytown" on Wikipedia has the power to plunge all of Scandinavia into a Civil War over a high-end estimate of an ethnic group on numbers that no one can agree on... What source that you cite that gives the Norwegian Sami only 25,000? The lowest number cited on the page for Norway is "50,000". There were no accurate population numbers five years ago or even now, so your "500%" statement is wrong. The "English" source (i.e. Norwegian Government) is used because it is an official (and reliable) statement from the Norwegian government and it can be easily read by anyone knowing English. There are similar sources in Norwegian. There are no - and may never be, fixed numbers of Sami population because of their history. Read the article and find out.
Check you math - your numbers on the intro box do not add up. Either you fix it or I will. I don't want to get into a edit war over this, but it should be corrected. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sami Photos

Please state the reasons why one wishes to have either photo, the Sami Woman, or the Sami Collage. Dinkytown (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC):

Sami Collage

The major problem I'm having with the Collage in the current form is that it's very poorly put together. Someone with minimum photoshop skills and aesthetic sense should do it in case such a collage is preferred. Otherwise sure why not, the old pic of the Sami Woman is nice just that because of it's historic nature, it might suggest that the Sami have been instinct by now.--Termer (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Better 'overview' perhaps, sense of perspective and continuity − including the present day. Vide: Austrians for example. I could also think of contributions to the world culture. It's good when the article on living people is not suggestive of a postmortem... The current collage, apart from technical aspects, is excellent as an illustration, in my opinion. --Algkalv (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I personally like the Sami Woman, only because of the romantisim and historical impact of it. But then again, if I like it that much I would frame it and hang it on my living room wall... I understand the need to have something more 'living' for an intro photo, rather than as a historical artifact. Can we make a better collage than the present one? I would hope so... BTW, are collages legal on Wikipedia? I thought they were discurging them. Dinkytown (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Now I see your point on that one. I agree. Maybe someone could make a better one. Though, the Sami woman really should be on here somewhere. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If any constituent image of the collage is suitable for use, why would not a collage be suitable as well? Is there a policy for 'discouragement' you mentioned? If that is the case, CSS may be used to 'glue' separate images to achieve the same (or similar) effect. --Algkalv (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The collages are pretty much in Normal use on ethnic groups' pages by now. See Norwegians, Georgians and many others. That collage is the best I can do, with my limited skills - and taking into account rights' issues (see above). If anyone want to make something better, I encourage them. But in my opinion there should definitely be a collage - including both historical and living people. - Misha BB--193.156.29.172 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

More reasons: The sámi woman illustrates one gender, one regional subdivision, and is not contemporary. The collage has a gender balance, represents several regional subdivisions (coast/inland, north/lule/south, Sápmi/North America), has historical and living persons, has a wide spectrum of types of people (politicians, artists, academics) - in essence, it reflects the multifaceted Sámi nation in a much better way than one historical photo of an anonymous person can ever do. Also, the collage conforms to a trend on Wikipedia - they are increasingly becoming normal as headers for ethnic groups' pages, as far as I can tell. --193.156.29.172 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Still Misha BB

I understand the reasons (you gave some good examples) why collages would work well for an intro. I thought there was a policy against them, but maybe I got it confused with a dating service photo requirement... :) I will try to look for the ruling (if any) to see if there is an infraction, but lets go on the assumption that there isn't any rule on the subject. Dinkytown (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sami Woman

Reorganization, anyone?

For all I know, I'm opening a right can of worms here, but... Shouldn't this entire page be organized in a somewhat more easy-navigable fashion? I'm thinking (0. Shorten down the text currently above the index box.)
1. Origin (etymology, certain elements of genology, very early history).
2. Brief history.
3. Current population and distribution (current demography, spatial distribution, link to "Sápmi" article, important places).
4. Sámi politics (institutions, rights, current isues, organization, policy).
4. Culture (language, national symbols, religion, current culture section).
5. Notable people
6. See also
7. References
8. External links

I think that's just a bit more orderly and navigable than: 1 Etymologies
2 History
3 Culture
4 Sami policy
5 Sápmi
6 Organization
7 National symbols
8 Religion
9 Language
10 Genetics and the history of genetic studies on the Sami
11 Notable people of Sami descent
12 See also
13 References
14 External links

Anyone agreeing/not agreeing? - Misha BB--193.156.29.172 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree,although I will admit that it will take some time and negociation. Dinkytown (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Last yoik

http://www.elonmerkki.net/en/index.html - so can be added to the film section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sámi_peoples/Archive_2&oldid=1182511812"