Talk:Finnic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Finnic peoples article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] The Finnic group

May I ask why my edits was rejected and why the text is degrading Samis? I'm assuming that Finnic corresponds to Swedish "finsk" or "finno". This is the old text

'''Finnic''' may also refer to the [[people]]s speaking these languages, and their farmer-hunter culture, traditionally living in [[Karelia]], [[Ingria]], [[Estonia]], [[Finland]], Northernmost [[Norway]] and Northern [[Sweden]]. ''Finnic'' used in this way establish the contrast to the [[Nomadic people|nomadic]] [[Sami]]s, but also to the [[Slavic peoples|Slavonics]], the [[Balts]] and the [[Scandinavia]]ns (or the [[Germanic peoples]]).
''[[Fenni]]'' is first known to be used as a name for what was probably the nomadic Samis
  • Originally, Fennic or finnic is a word denoting a hunter-only culture or group of people, living in the northen Europe. (See Sami for various -fennic "livingstyles"). Not a farmer-hunter culture.
  • Samis are not Nomadic people.
  • The sami languages or dialects are part of Finno-Ugric languages.
// Rogper 13:43, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
You should not assume Finnic to be a translation of Swedish finsk, except in the most careless usage, and even less of finländsk, but maybe of "finskättad" or rather finskbesläktad in the meaning of finnarnas frändefolk.
--Johan Magnus 00:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

212.181.86.76, please cite your sources and reconsider using "nomadic" for other ugric peoples when you don't use it for Fennic since they share same culture. // Rogper 17:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me as if the nomadic word has caused some confusion here. What would you say about a wording along the line of:

Finnic may also refer to the peoples speaking these languages, and their farmer-hunter culture, traditionally living in Karelia, Ingria, Estonia, Finland, Northernmost Norway and Northern Sweden. Finnic used in this way establish the contrast to the non-farming Samis, with a different relation to ownership of land typical for more mobile fishing-hunting cultures, but also to the Slavonics, the Balts and the Scandinavians (or the Germanic peoples).

You may have a similar objection against the last paragraph at Ethnic Finn. I do not. I've learned to distinguish the Samis as (traditionally) nomadic. Wouldn't it be appropriate to lable Samis as hunter-gatherers?
--Ruhrjung 03:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RogPer, I do not understand your question. Comparative linguistics indicates a difference between languages affected by farming and those not. To the former category belongs Finnish with Karelian and the more southern Baltic-Finnic languages; to the latter the Samic languages. Furthermore, the approximate time for contacts with (proto-)Germanic and Slavonic can be calculated — if one believes in such magic. In any case, it's for different reasons out of question that those Finnic peoples that migrated from present-day Lithuania to the North should not have been farmers. Slash-and-burn farmers, maybe, farmers–fishers or farmers–hunters, yes, often, but farmers never-the-less. The Samic languages and Samic mythology is reported to lack that kind of traces. This is as far as I know the uncontroversial scientifical "truth" of our time, if you have a source saying the opposite then that is interesting and in need of in dept analyses. Per definition, farmers can not be nomadic. /M.L.

What time period is this article refering to ?
I've seen some people refering to nomadic Sami althought I don't really know what they mean. All Laplanders have fished, gathered and hunted to pay taxes to either the Russian crown (pre-14th) and Swedish-Finnish-Danish-Norwegian crown (after 14th century). The etablishment of larger herds is due to a change in payment: tribes should be paid in money instead of fur and fish. Today, its only a minor part of the Sami group that live on reindeer herd economy.
// Rogper 11:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that the article is intended to throw light on the present-day usage of the term Finnic. To explain how such a concept has entered the English language, it's unlikely to have to go further back in history than to 19th century national romanticism, ethnic nationalism and specifically the Fennomans. However, and this I write without any specialized personal knowledge on the Fennomans, taking into account the great importance the 19th century Western World put in civilization versus less advanced cultures, it seems more than likely that an emphasized distinction between Samis and Finnics (the latter often denoted as "tribal brethren" by the Finns) among other purposes served to enhance the reception of the new Finnish nation among the Western European nations where she felt she belonged.
--Ruhrjung 06:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of "Finnic"

This is an encyclopedia and we cannot start to define our own meaning of the word "Finnic", even if some individual Finns is sitting and trying to define it themself. It seems to me that some "Fennomans" wants to have their own meaning to the word "Finnic" but since it was initated first for another use I recommend our Finnish friends to use another word for that purpose! This article was so misleading so I moved it to Baltic Finnic. // Rogper 21:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can not argue like that. And you might gain some goodwill from adherence to basic wikiquette. Wikipedia has to mirror contemporary usage. If that differs from any historical or specialized usage, then that has to be stated. It doesn't do to sweap aspects of the reality under the carpet just since you don't like them. I revert your rather hostile and radical rewrite. /Tuomas 06:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I beleive it doesn't differ from its historical or specialized usage but that yourself or behalf on another are attempting to adjust its meaning for another purpose, and that is not the aim for Wikipedia. I started to comment this article for half a year ago, and the fact that someone is typing malformed information, so I think wikiquette has nothing to do with this. In fact I follow Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. You are welcome to refer to any viable source that discuss this different interpretation of Finnic, then it is ok. // Rogper 13:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
would any of the following say something to you?
--Johan Magnus 16:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello Johan and others!

The discussion is beginning to be quite tedious and I am suprised over the reaction I meet from, and the behaviour of, some Finnish Wikipedia authors. I don't care if they want to separate the Finnic languages into distinct ethnic group, but I suppose this is your aims. Note that Same, Suomelaisset, Samoyed, etc. are by most held to be the same word etymologically, and why attempt to distinguish their English form; Sami, Finnish, Nenets?

Firstly, http://www.ethnologue.com state that Finnic = Finnish and does not include Karelian, Ludian, Vepsian, Ingrian, Votian, Livonian. I would not take this source reliable in current form. See the article Finno-Ugric languages how Finnic is used in the language case on Wikipedia.

Secondly, the information given by your other sources such as Webster, Wordnet and (recursively) to this Wikipedia article state something of or pertaining to the Finns (FINN + (suffix) IC) but althought this is covered in my version, Wikipedia should not have the article in the word's inflexion. Thus, as I understand it, use Finn or Finnish if you want to associate history with "Finnic". Note that your source specially denotes "Baltic-Finnic", too. Compare the strings "finnic history" and "finnish history" on Google; why do we have "history" in this article?

The fact that we have one meaning in Finno-Ugric languages, and the fact that someone is trying to enter malformed information about Finnish archaeology cultures, makes this article unreliable. Therefore, use Baltic Finnic, that's it, the word University of Helsinki used above in Johan's links, or Finn for that purpose and do not connect it with Finnic, which is an own word in English language.

Maybe you can use Finnic peoples for your own purpose, but note that Encyclopædia Britannica, or one of the largest and most reliablest encyklopedias in the world, refered to Finnic peoples merely for the Finnic branch of Finno-Ugric peoples, thus including Sami, Suomelaisset, Samoyeds, etc... The fact that my edits conforms to both Britanica and Oxford English Dictionary (Dictionary over the English language!), make my version better suited for Wikipedia. Wikipedia shall not include words because some individuals is not influent in English language, like me :-).

See (or read my summary):

Compare also:

Regards,
Rogper 14:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had been happy to carry out this discussion in Swedish, which is my mother tongue, but as this is an article here, at the English wikipedia, we will have to do with ESL.

Briefly, and with all respect, it's hard not to see a clear tendency in Rogper's edits and arguing that may or may not have merits, specifically the claiming of the word "Finn" and cognates to include the Sami. I guess few, if any, recent contributors here have a sufficient expertice in the English usage of the term, that after all, by necessity, has to be known to a rather narrow circle of specialists.

Given the intra-wikipedia references to Finnic, I do however strongly support keeping the article according to the previous definition of Finnic that excludes the Samis, at least until the matter has been somehow resolved.

Although I do not, and can not, feel identified as one of the "Finnish Wikipedia authors" with surprising and unwished behaviour, I think Rogper could have gained much from making concrete proposals at the talk page instead of as edits; since it's rather obvious that the matter is somehow sensitive. One chief intention with my revert is to avoid a situation where "some Finnish Wikipedia authors" feel provoked, and to avoid anything like an escalation of a disagreement into a conflict. --Johan Magnus 21:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Europe at the death of Charles The Great 814. -"A School Atlas of English History" ed. by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, M.A. LL.D.
Europe at the death of Charles The Great 814. -"A School Atlas of English History" ed. by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, M.A. LL.D.
Thanks for your polite conversation.

Currently, Finnic simply refers to the Finnic branch of Finno-Ugric language, that also includes lots of ethnic groups and not particular Finlanders and their Baltic neigbourhooding groups. Secondly, Wikipedia also uses a wider meaning of "Finnish tribes" and does not particular refer to "Finlandic tribes"; in fact, it merely refers to those groups we normally not associate with Finlanders. See the map I provide; I find no support of your statement "[this is used by a] rather narrow circle of specialists". It would be very wrong to use Finnic for an almost neglible part of what really make up Finnic, don't you think? Therefore, I believe we can't enter someones interpretation that Finnic should in particular refer to Finlanders. Are there peoples getting insulted for this wider meaning? Maybee we can write:
The term Finnic is today used very much and in particular associated with Baltic-Finns, Finland and Ethnic Finns, so that a new interpretation is usually made that it pertains to those groups.
//Regards/Terve toula Rogper 23:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This is an obscure topic, which probably is a big part of the problem.
I am to blame for the creation of this article, and thus for the dispute (or whatever it is) above. My knowledge of things Samic is fairly limited. My knowledge of things Finnish is not particularly broad, either, but there is no reason to deny that my understanding is heavily biased by how people I've learned to know think and classify. Since I've studied Swedish, I believe that this article in its current, by Rogper criticized, version is coherent also with how people in Sweden categorize, i.e. denoting Finns together with Estonians and Karelians and Livonians and so on, but culturally more distantly related to Samis.
The (German) textbook I relied on when I wrote the initial version of this article classify as follows (here with English suffixes):
  • Uralic
    • Finno-Ugric
      • Permic
      • Mordvinic
      • (Balto-)Finnic
        • Finnish
        • Estonian
        • Livian, etc, etc
      • Lappic (i.e. Samic)
This is neither quite in accordance with http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=718, nor with the tree at Finno-Ugric.
I have no prestige bound to my interpretation of this matter. However I think it's very important to fix the references to the article before /at the same time as/ the article is radically changed, and therefore I'm not quite impressed by Rogper's judgement, which (unfortunately) tends to make me less inclined to rely on Rogper as an authoritative source. If I am wrong in this, as the most recent contributions by Rogper on this talk page may indicate, I'm prepared to offer my apologies, but first of all one must wonder if it would be a good solution, wikipedia-wise, to change the references to Finnic in the articles that refer here to Balto-Finnic, which I guess must be what Rogper aims at. I've heard people using many expressions, like "tribal brethren," "frändefolk" and so on, that aren't really suitable since they are too generic, but never have I heard anyone saying "Balto-Finnic".
In any case: It's hard to avoid influence from 19th century Fennoman thinking, since that actually have influenced the way approximately five million Finns think and express themselves.
--Ruhrjung 19:30, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any prestige in the usage of Finnic (finsk-) but Wikipedia is not aimed to coin words for new meanings, but to relay on their original interpretation and state their associations. And if it are reasons to do that, then Finlandic (Finländskt) would be better. The meaning of Finnic (Finskt) in Sweden usually associates to Finlandic (Finländskt), but not always.

I'm intresting to see this article referring to sources, too, especially those who clearly indicate clear different between Scandinavic and Finnic from archaeologic viewpoint.

Whether it should be Baltic-Finnic or Balto-Finnic I don't know, but the links Johan Magnus provided above uses Baltic-Finnic.

I started to change some referens to this article. There are also some contributors that have started to mark "Finnic" to many other articles that have whatsoever nothing to do with the Finlandic interpretation of Finnic.

// Rogper 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is somewhat complicated. There is a need for an English language word that has to carry distinctions that are taken for granted in Finnish, but also in Swedish, discurse. Estonians are not relevant, I believe, since there are no Samis in Estonia.

I would not easily take the word Finnic in my mouth, but my interpretation of that word if said by someone else would most likely be different from "*Finlandic" (in my opinion a non-word for Finnish) that would include the Finland-Swedes, but no Karelians, or Estonians, or any of the lesser Finno-Ugric peoples of Balticum, that hardly have survived Soviet oppression. The (Finnish speaking) Finns' feeling of unity with these kindred peoples is inherent in cultural discurse, and is noted and realized also by Scandinavians, although sometimes critically.

However, while I can imagine people using the word Finnic, I do not believe I've heard, or seen, or ever will see Balto-Finnic in this sense. I can not argue against your implicite statement that Balto-Finnic would be more correct, maybe you are right, maybe you are not, but such correctness alone doesn't help if instead the word Finnic is in sparse but real use.

Frequently Asked Questions about Finno-Ugrian Languages are in my opinion credible and state:

From this proto-language, the present FU languages have developed to different directions, due to both internal drifts and foreign influences. Traditionally, this has been illustrated with a family-tree model, which, of course, is a coarse and simplified description of the relationship. Nowadays, many linguists draw a more bush-like model, with the main branches (Finnic, Sámi, Mordvin, Mari, Permian, Ugric, Samoyed) all equal; their internal relationships cannot be satisfactorily accounted for in terms of the family-tree model.

/Tuomas 12:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, I would wish to see some concrete proposals. But before that, I would like to try to sum up: RogPer argue that a pre-19th century usage of a term should be conserved, and that the "fennoman" definition of Finnic that includes Karelians and Estonians but excludes Samis is too recent and unestablished for Wikipedia. Tuomas argue that Wikipedia has to mirror contemporary usage, that naturally is dominated by that of some 5,000,000 Finns over some 100,000 Samis.

I don't know if there really exist a Sami feeling of identity with other peoples identified as "Finnic", or if there really exist a feeling of Finnish identity that excludes the Samis, but the sources I introduced above give me that impression, as does Tuomas arguing above. But I would like to stress, that I feel a striking lack of authoritative guidance. So let's assume that there really is a conflict between the interpretation of the English word Finnic between Samis, who feel they rightfully should be included in that concept, and non-Sami Finnics who feel the Samis should be excluded.

If this is the case, then both views have to be taken into account, and Wikipedia's NPOV-approach would probably be advantageous for this. However, one chief problem would remain, as mentioned above, and that is the references to the word Finnic. Today, most references are to the supposedly Finnish meaning of Finnic. Wouldn't it be confusing if some future references were to the inclusive, supposedly Sami, meaning of Finnic?

One possible solution would be to have a redirect at Finnic to Balto-Finnic, and a disambiguation block at the top of Balto-Finnic to Finno-Lappic (that is the term used on Finno-Ugric language). By such a solution, the current references to Finnic wouldn't need to be reworded, and actually, the article could continue to use Finnic as a stated shortform for Balto-Finnic, but the title of the page would be more correct according to people who agree with RogPer; and references to the inclusive meaning of Finnic would be directed to the right article.

RogPer proposed the wording:

The term Finnic is today used very much and in particular associated with Baltic-Finns, Finland and Ethnic Finns, so that a new interpretation is usually made that it pertains to those groups.

I guess the lack of comments on this proposal means that this wording was considered too problematic to start on, but does that really mean that the current wording is optimal?

Finnic may also refer to the settled peoples speaking these languages, and their farmer-hunter culture, traditionally living in Karelia, Ingria, Estonia, Finland, Northernmost Norway and Northern Sweden. Finnic used in this way establish the contrast to the akin but historically nomadic Samis, and also to the Slavonics, the Balts, and the Germanic Scandinavians.

Without attempting to offend anyone, I would also like to ask if RogPer believes in a feeling of lingual identity that Finnish speakers direct to Karelians, Estonians, etc, but not to Finland-Swedes, Scandinavians, Russians or Samis? The introduction of "Finlandic" above, raises the suspicion that RogPer has quite another concept in mind than have Ruhrjung or Tuomas. If that's the case, then no wonder if the communication is somewhat problematic.

--Johan Magnus 14:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that wording is good. (I wouldn't say optimal, but... I haven't seen anything better.) /Tuomas 14:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We shouldn't, BTW, not let us confuse by Swedes' slappy usage of "finsk" to include Ingrians and so on. Also they can do better, with only little effort! /Tuomas 14:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I might answer that my repeated attempts to understand how the Finnish speakers categorize has only resulted in confusion! I am, BTW, almost sure to have heard Ingrians being categorized as a suomalaiset kansa, but in other contexts I believed suomalainen/suomalaiset is used similarly to of Finnish nationality, i.e. including the Finland-Swedes. Strange, isn't it? --Johan Magnus 00:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so very familiar with the Phinnicism and Phennomanism concepts. But aren't their goals to make similar changes as Laps have apparently done more successful: the official term is Sámi and not (the Scandinavian term) Lap. Similar exists for Tornedalians, who prefers Meänkieli. Johan Magnus; with the current interpretation of Finnic, I mean Finlandic = Finnic.

However, this is my proposal:

Finnic refers to a group of related languages or the Finnic branch of the Uralic languages including Finnish, Karelian, Estonian, Livonian, Ingrian, Sámi amongst others, but not Hungarian language. The Finnish sub-branch, sometimes refered to as Finnic itself, is the largest group of Finnic languages.
Finnic also refers to something of (or pertaining to) Finns, today mostly considered equivalent to groups in Finland and its neigbourhood, such as Karelia and Estonia.
The term Finnic is today used very much and in particular associated with Baltic-Finns, Finland and Ethnic Finns, so that a new interpretation is usually made that it pertains to those groups.

I think it is wrong to make a modern association that Finnic specific refers to the Baltic-Finnic branch or groups; I suggest that the term Baltic-Finnic is better suited for that purpose. Perhaps we will in future see the usage of Suomi, Hämäläinen, Zembe, etc. ? Anyway, this is all I want to say. // Rogper 21:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I might disagree with you (I probably do), but I most certainly welcome your constructive proposal, which I intend to ponder carefully before I express any opinion about it. /Tuomas 11:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we totally disagree here but I'm open for the new interpretation, but I don't think it should replace present meaning. Compare how "Teutonic" designated proto-Germanic languages historically, and still does very much, althought it have whatsoever (presumably) nothing to do with Germans. Here is one erception from OED how Finnic enters the English language and is used:
1668 WILKINS Real Char. I. i. §iii. 4 The Finnic [language] used in Finland and Lapland. 1674 tr. Scheffer's Lapland 76 The Finnonick Language. 1878 N. Amer. Rev. CXXVI. 368 The Lesghian and other tongues of the Caucasus, by some pretended to be of Finnic origin.
Note that my arguing does not only cover Laps and Finns, but Mari, Komi, etc.., too. // Rogper 18:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Synonym to Finnic

A relevant example of what I consider directly incorrect usage for the English language can be seen at [7], where an anonymous Wikipedian writes Finns for an entity that includes Estonians and Karelians. At that place I would have liked to write Finnics, but I wonder what RogPer would prefer there. --Johan Magnus 08:47, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I personally suggest Baltic-Finnic groups. To be more specific: the historical records speaks about Livians, Curians, Pomeranians, etc. and not Finns or Finnic. I also have criticism of the usage of Swedes because this is somewhat an anachronism: It should rather be Danish-Norwegian groups and not Swedes or Swedish. // Rogper 19:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me see if I get you right. You would prefer the following wording with regards to the topic of this discussion?
Despite overlaps, crusading spheres were concentrated thusly:
Is this correct?
--Johan Magnus 21:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

J.M., the question how you should edit the article Northen Crusades (or whatever its title is) does not concert me at the moment, but I suppose you can solve this yourself without creating new terms since this issue is covered by historical records. // Rogper 21:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue discussed, and I don't really understand why you had to make a heading of its own, that for more sensitive people than me would have been perceived as an attempt of intimidation[8], is the meaning of Finnic; where you so far as we have seen in this discussion is the only one yet, who proposes a changed definition. I tried to throw some light on this great problem of yours.
— Now, say Thank you to the kind uncle!
--Johan Magnus 21:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the heading and / or the comment, but it was not to insult you, if you think that! // Rogper 23:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can also extent the problem on the Northern Crusades-article, because it is wrong to use Swedes when it rather should be proto-Sweden, and Germans when it should be Frisian/proto-Germany, etc. // Rogper 23:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Germans most certainly existed as a grouping well before the Northern Crusades, but this is really of absolutely no relevance to this issue. //Tuomas 09:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The problem...

is that this is conflating what should be two different articles: Finnic languages and Finnic peoples. For a similar example, see Semitic languages and Semitic, or Berber languages and Berber. Just my 2 cents... - Mustafaa 19:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...which may be connected to how intimately language is to this issue. (I believe it's a similar situation in Estonia.) /Tuomas 11:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I came here from RfC. Can someone summarize the disagreement? I'm not sure I can help, because I'm ignorant of Finnic. Maurreen 06:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One user, who maybe sees himself as a representative or advocate of the oppressed autochtonous Sami minority, seemingly thinks that it would be politically correct to eradicate traces of foundation for (or expressions of) this oppression, specifically the common perception of affinity between traditionally agricultural peoples to the south of the Samis and their perceived collective differentness vis-à-vis the Samis that results in a certain degree of tensions and animosity. His chief argument is that the national awakening of Finns (early 19th century) and Estonians (slightly later) introduced aborations of the understanding of Finnic and are too recent to be considered of encyclopedic weight.

Particularly for a non-Fenno-Scandinavian readership, there is (in my opinion) a need to express the relative affinity and kinship between certain finno-ugric peoples and on the other hand Germanics and Slavonics. The user rogper wants this distinction to be blurred or removed, not by presenting an alternative view, but by changing the content of this article rather radically, which would indirectly change the meaning of references to this article in a rather confusing and often directly contradicting way.

The kernel of this issue is the word relative above. Finns make a point of being different from the indo-european Scandinavians (and Karelians make a point of their cultural and ethnic difference from the indo-european Russians; and the Estonians are eager to distance themselves from Russians and Germans and the indo-european Latvians and Lithuanians). However, if this was worded as a matter of Finno-Ugric affinity, it would promptly be regarded as errornous, as that would have included plenty of more distantly kindred and located peoples along the Arctic Sea (and to many readers even the Magyars). In fact, much closer kinship is required to receive a favourable treatment by for instance the Finnish government's agencies. This works also in the other direction. A personal aquaintance of mine, with Sami roots, argues that Finns are about as despisable (and despised) as "Swedish colonists". --Johan Magnus 17:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Toumas et al, I don't want to blur the picture. I have wrote much on Khant, Sami and other sub-Arctic groups. The relationship among Finnic (Finno-) groups is to complex to sort out in an article like Finnic. I know that some consider physical or rather genetical traits having a major role, but I don't think this need to be covered in detail, because it is so complex. // Rogper 23:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, as I am personally suspicious against the nationalist and chauvinist thinking that is a part of the foundation for the usage of the concept of Finnic, I'm not particularly inclined to direct my limited time to efforts on such a "flawed" concept — and seemingly I'm not the only one who feels so, which gives this dispute a character as if it was carried out in sirup: None of the "defenders" of the definition the article builds on in its original state seems particularly energetic. :-) /Tuomas 09:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for Rogper's response. Maurreen 11:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The essentially answer is yes to your [Tuomas] statements, besides I'm not a representative of Sami minority. I simply claim that Finnic has a wider interpretation than, in particular, Baltic-Finnic including not only Sami but e.g. Permic, too. I'm looking for a final solution that include presenting the modern picture and not anything else, but I think it is wrong to redefine the term (as I see it and such as it's done at the moment) to etablish a completely new interpretation, even if webpages at Helsinkis University supports this viewpoint. My main argument is that I can show the wider interpretation, too. (see above)
I also think it is more resonable to state that Finnic (or Finno-Ugric) is usually associated with the early agrarian/semi-agrarian Comb-Ceramic culture/Asbestos culture rather than some process associated with 'Völkerwanderung'. In Asbestos culture I wrote Laplanders and not Finnic / Finlandic or even Norwegian, because it is common to do so but when I have more time I will maybe fix this.
I'm sure you know that Pitkänen 10 years ago argued that the Comb-Ceramic culture was asociated with the non-agricultural population that remained in northern Finland/Scandinavia, and likely was the predecessors of the Samis. The enigma remains how come the Saami came to retain a mitochondrial gene pool distinct from that of other European populations, but share a language and some mythology with some of these populations.
The changed colonization pattern of agricultural Finno-Ugric populations is not particularly controversial, and it happends to coincide with the Migrations Period ...and if I don't misremember now, aswell with the spread of the slash and burn technique. /Tuomas 20:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are no secure traces that the Comb-Ceramic Culture was agrarian, most points it was not, but since the book I have from 1995 states that more research is needed, a neutral picture would mention this. (There is a "literary" problem if Comb-Ceramic Culture shows out to be agrarian, since agriculture is usually considered to be Indo-European althought it descents perhaps from Altaic regions.) // Rogper 21:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To foreign authors: some historical ethnic groups, mentioned in antique records, have often led to a debate, often aggresive, between Scandinavian and Finnish authors when the question whether Finn och Quen merely refers to Germanic and not Finnish tribes (thus not the question whether Finn refers to Sami of Finns or some other Finno-Ugric peoples.) I suppose there exists groups holding those terms very tied near the heart. :-)
//Regards,
Rogper 16:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This would have been good and well if you had adressed the concerns raised by others. However, by ultimately clearly stating that it was not a problem of yours if your proposed re-write of the article causes strange effects in other articles, one must sadly conclude that you not yet are working for the best of Wikipedia, but to promote your personal point of view. I am sure you can do better, which is why I would kindly request you to meditate a while over the issue how you could contribute to solutions of the problems your proposals are perceived to result in. --Johan Magnus 17:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The question

The question appears to be: "whether Finn och Quen merely refers to Germanic and not Finnish tribes (thus not the question whether Finn refers to Sami of Finns or some other Finno-Ugric peoples)." Maurreen 00:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...No, not really. Very few, if any, would argue for classifying speakers of finno-ugric languages as Germanics. The issue is rather whether there is a closer affinity or feeling of kinship between certain of the finno-ugric peoples, i.e. the (ethnic) Finns, the Estonians, the Karelians and the lesser finno-ugric peoples in the Lake Onega–Lake Ladoga–Gulf of Finland–Gulf of Riga region. /Tuomas 15:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I almost belive that this debate:
that debate whether other-Finnic groups belongs to Finnic (the "Finno-" in Finno-Ugric) or should be classified as non-Finnic,
has been "poisoned" by the debate whether Finno-Ugric (Finnish peoples, see map above) are actually recorded in history, or whether they are old terms for Germanic tribes (since it is considered to be Germanic word) and whether Finno-Ugric peoples (such as Laps, Carelians, Finns etc.) could do agricultural business or not in pre-historic time. The debate has been "hot-tempered", as some historian like to put it. Today this discussion is terminated, and what the historical records concern, it is replaced by a debate over their factual history.
      The meaning of Finnic is clearly listed in other sources, such as Oxford English Dictionary / Websters dictionary, to be related to language, that's it, the "Finno-" branch of Finno-Ugric language, or Finnic as it is written in adjective form. The question is whether we should do like modern authors have "recently" begun, that's it, replace -ish with -ic, so that
Finnic = Finnish (or Baltic-Finnic peoples / culture)
but I argue that we should stick to conservativness, essentially at least. Anyway, the relation of the Finno-Ugric language group is somewhat debated. The fact that Norse, Euro-Siberian, Paleo-Siberian, etc. types (or races) are somewhat genetically unrelated together with the fact that there are real language differences, some reject this theory. Earlier, however, they were considered somewhat far related or inter-mixed antropologically. On this grounds, some individuals considers the modern definition of Finnic to be defined, where Finnic refers to (essentially) Norse culture that have change their language to a Finnish. (c.f. Ethnic Finns). Or do I have wrong? I propose that such text
should go elsewere, such as Ethnic Finns, Finlandic, Finland proper or whatever title is suitable (note that it is bad Wikipedia-practice to coin new words.)
// Regards, Rogper 21:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You may note that Ethnic Finn, Finnish (i.e. what you call *Finlandic) and Finland Proper are existing terms that has other meanings. Remains to introduce the term Balto-Finnics for what this article until now has denoted, however, noone use that term, and it harbours the risk of being mistakenly confused with the Balts which is another neighbouring group of peoples (besides the Samis, the Germanics and the Slavonics) which the (Balto-) Finnic peoples are important to differentiate from. /Tuomas 21:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't Baltic-Finnic is in usage; Finnic is also an existing term, isn't it. // Rogper 22:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution

It seems like this could be settled by indicating both views and giving sources for each, possibly with footnotes. Does anyone disagree with that approach? Maurreen 00:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Scandinavia for a somewhat similar situation.
--Johan Magnus 07:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I only read the introduction there, but that looked really good to me. Maurreen 08:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is source, but that should rather be placed in Phinni / Fenni and not Finnic. I argue for conservatiness, that's it, that Finnic refers to the Finnic branch of Finno-Ugric language and that "Finnic history" should rather be placed in Ethnic Finns of History of Finland. That Finnic today sometimes refers specifially to Finland proper, or Baltic-Finnic, I strongly disagree to be the major content of article. // Rogper 21:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What if Estonians and Karelians and Livonians and Izhorians do not consider themselves to be Ethnic Finns? /Tuomas 21:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its somewhat difficult question to answer without references. I think Kvæner have similar self-consciousness (at least they seems to state that so in newspapers.) // Rogper 22:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem is: they don't. Not at all.
Maybe you should read these articles?
--Johan Magnus 22:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you have right, I don't know. I think you too should read these articles, :-) // Rogper 23:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Demo pages

Finnic/temp is my demo page. I will later in this week, when I have time, fill out with small cited examples. Perhaps I will essentially fill in Fenni with that, but however.. Comments? // Regards, Rogper 00:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, for both sides to make a draft to compare. I'm still confused, but it seem like perhaps you guys are making progress toward a compromise. Maurreen 05:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is laudable, and fully in line with what has been proposed a few times above. --Johan Magnus 07:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Copied from the talk page for Finnic/temp which is now deleted
I think Wikipedia better be more specific. See Scandinavia for an example of what I mean, i.e. In a X context, Finnic denotes... In a Y context, confusingly the term Finnic could mean.... --Johan Magnus 07:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Argh! Why was Finnic/temp deleted!? Never mind... However, I'm still working with this issue and sitting here with Prof. Heikki Kirkinen's work 'Finlands expansion österut under medeltiden och början av nya tiden.' 'Finland's expansion eastwards during the Middle Age och beginning of the New Age.' He clearly uses the term Balto-Finnic (Sw. 'Östersjöfinska') instead of the (more generetic?) term Finnic. That some researchers, essentially linguists?, sometimes uses a short form 'Finnic' for Balto-Finnic may have various reasons. One may simply be that the Finno-Ugric orientation has sadly such low research resourcers, thus, that things are forgotten or reintroduced. I still argue that Wikipedia should use Finnic (and Sawonian) as 'non-Ugric' instead of 'Balto-Finnic' (and 'Finnish proper'), respectively //Rogper 18:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finnic/temp hadn't been edited since late November. If you want it back, let me know and I'll undelete it, but it sure looked abandoned. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Which most probably had much to do with the rather consensus-natured opposition against his wordings — and the ideas behind! No reason to undelete! /Tuomas 15:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About to move to Balto-Finnic peoples.

I'm about to move this page to Balto-Finnic peoples, because this page is about those groups. Are there any objections? // Rogper 14:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Finnic" could perhaps be merged with "Balto-Finnic", but please note that these are both primarily linguistic terms denoting language groups, not peoples. The term "Balto-Finnic peoples" is somewhat confusing and misleading (and certainly not widely used in professional literature). The only thing which defines whether any given people are Balto-Finnic (or Finno-Ugric, or Indo-European...) or not is the language they speak. --3 Löwi 16:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
There are Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, Indo-European peoples and so on. There are also Finnic peoples and it is not confusing. Finnic peoples are those peoples who speak Finnic languages, just as simply as germanic peoples are germanic speaking peoples and sami peoples are sami speaking peoples.

'Balto-Finnic peoples', sorry to say is a nonsense. there are Baltic people Aka Balts and there are Finno-Ugric people.--Termer 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnic = Finland?

Many Wikipedia articles seem to use the word finnic in the meaning "something of or relating to Finland or the Finnish people". Is this correct usage? If it is, we should mention this alternative meaning in the article. If not, we should correct the referring articles and replace finnic with finnish. -- Petri Krohn 23:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge the equivalent of 'Finnic' would be such terms as 'Germanic' (not the same as German), 'Italic' (not the same as Italian), 'Romance' or 'Romanic' (not the same as Roman). This terminology should be primarily considered linguistic in nature. The confusion might be that some people in Wikipedia seem to use these (originally) linguistic terms in too strict ethnological contexts. Clarifer

[edit] Finnic contributions

During the Viking Age - for one - the Finnish Karelians fought, with and without the assistance of some Slavic elements, against the Finnish Kvens up north - and as it seems, quite south as well. The Kvens were supported by the Norse, at least from time to time.

Later on the Karelians and the Kvens cooperated against the Norse, and - as the time went on -against the Slavic groups as well.

This at least according to the Viking sagas and chronicles, as well as other historical writings and documentation. If the sagas and other chronicles of the Viking period - or the related history writings from later times - are not to be believed, nor the archeological escavations or the sociological, linguistic or other research, what is then ?

This juxtapositioning and the latest archeological findings and the newest DNA reserch indeed have recently brought more scientists to review the Finnic contributions in the founding of Moscow, Kiev, etc. - among other things.

The electorinic media and the current computer age of ours have helped in the correction work of many myths. - January 26, 2006 -

[edit] How many Finnic people are there now?

Does anyone have any info on the total population of finnic peoples around the world? I personally guess it would be around 9 to 12 million, but I'm not sure. I say these numbers because finnic peoples would include the 5,2m in Finland, ~1m+ in Estonia, some in Sweden, a whole bunch in Russia, some 100 000 in North Norway and around a million total in North America. --HJV 23:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian

The Norwegian links point to an article about the language group, not the people. --Vuo 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map + caption

Another petty issue, let's not make it a prob. a) some time some place someone brought the map into this article (as a side-remark: the whole relevancy of the map can be questioned in this context because the validity of the map is poor both in a demographical and in a historical sense as no hard data from the past can be presented from the area so the timelines are in fact more or less unknown and a lot of it is just assumed, this is not just a problem in this particular geographic area but many and wikipedia is full of these things). b) a problem occurs: how does one characterize such a map. c) as no certain years and history can be put into a context with the map (prior to WWI is incorrect because of e.g. St. Petersburg) the only possibility remains to characterise it with some vague expression such as "in the past". d) now, a new problem occurs: the map ALSO shows present day areas of Finland and Estonia which DO have a Baltic-Finnic speaking population presently (i.e. the map does not appear to show a situation of the past only). Therefore, one adds the wording "in the present" as well. I cannot see what is wrong with the simple wording: "map showing some of the territories inhabited by baltic-finnic speaking people in the past and present." or something. (A vague caption for a vague map....) It means: the map shows some of the territories that have been inhabited by B-F speakers in the past and some territores that are inhabited by B-F speakers at the present. Nothing more nothing less. Clarifer 06:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on this conversation

I just read most of the text on this talk page, and i have to say really did not understand what this talk is about. What has identity to do with this subject? Finnic or Balto-finnic has a clear linquistic meaning that has nothing to do with the identity of people. Baltic-Finnic or Finnic is a language family whose member languages are very closely related to each other. Sami does not belong to Baltic-Finnic family of languages. How ever both sami languages and Finnic or Baltic Finnic languages belong to a bigger family.

What are these claims about "fennomania"? At least I have not seen any fennomania in the article, but maybe I missed some earlier version. Tuohirulla puhu 3:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unscientific article

The basic idea of this article is dubious at best. There's definitely a group of people speaking Finnic lanugages, but this article tries to suggest that the peoples speaking these languages also form a genetically distinct group, distinguished from its neighbours. The article also states that linguists support this claim, but gives no sources. Nor is a single source presented to support the idea of the peoples speaking Finnic languages also form a distinct genetic group. This article could well be merged with the article on the Baltic-Finnic languages and the claim about a common genepool could then either be given sources (if such sources exist, every research I've read about has suggested the opposite) or excluded. JdeJ 16:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Should the Germanic and Slavic peoples be merged to their respective language groups too then? After all there is a reason that these peoples are speaking closely related languages: they are relatives. Of the languages especially Finnish and Estonian and Finnish and Karelian are close relatives - and thus belonging to the same group of peoples - how could such a thing be explained by other means than common history? Which would point to relatedness (spelling?). --Jaakko Sivonen 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the pages on Germanic and Slavic peoples yet, I'll give you a full answer when I've done. There is of course no such thing as a Slavic people, a Pole and a Bulgarian are very different genetically with the Pole being rather close to a Lithuanian and a Bulgarian to a Greek. The Germanic peoples in Europe are a bit more related, but not necessarily more so than with some of their neighbours. If those two articles you mention try to paint out a picture that is at odds with reallity, such as this one does, then of course I think the same way about them. I'll get back here when I've had time to read them. JdeJ 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is just poorly done... It needs to be re-researched and rewritten... Stevenmitchell 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? --Jaakko Sivonen 19:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Comparison with Slavic peoples and Germanic peoples

Right, I've read the two pages Jaakko Sivonen mentioned, Slavic peoples and Germanic peoples. Both of them are very well written, well sourced and up to date with modern findings. In other words, they are everything this article is not. Here's a paragraph from the introduction at Slavic peoples.

Slavic settlers mixed with existing local populations and later invaders, thus modern Slavic peoples share few genetic traits. Yet they are connected by speaking often closely related Slavic languages, and also by a sense of common identity and history, which is present to different extents among different individuals and different Slavic peoples.

So, that page does not try to make up some ethnic connection that isn't there but instead recognises the lack of genetic relations. What it says applies very much to Finno-Ugric languages. Even though there's a very weak connection between Finns and Hungarians, the same sense of identity is felt. The very scientific page on Slavic peoples also has a short section called Nationalist and fringe views. The content presented there is similar to the content on this page, but there it's clearly marked out as something that's rejected by modern science, in opposition to what this page makes readers believe. The article on Germanic peoples is also very good, stating clearly that Germanic peoples have at times assimilated other peoples in some areas and been assimilated themselves in some other areas. It makes it clear that speakers of Germanic languages only share a common language relation, not a common ethnicity. To conclude, after having read the two pages Jaakko Sivonen asked me to comment upon, I'm even more convinced that this page should be rewritten from scratch. Being very proud of my Finnic ancestry (three Finnic peoples, in fact), I see no reason why we should not have a page of the same scientific and encyclopedic quality as others do. JdeJ 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


There. And if you all would only spend half of the time debating here writing a wellbuilt scientific article instead, we´d all be happy. JJJJJJJJJJ

Jdej, from your take on this it was pretty much obvious from get-go you're Swedish-speaking without even looking at your user page. Here comes my €0,02 worth to clarify why some people feel the way they do on this page, as deeper understanding appears to be sorely missing.
Such linguistic affinities that you seem to consider should carry no weight are just as perfectly well a part of an identity as genetic ties are, and I would assert that in many ways they are more significant, as they live in the real life of the people subscribing to them, instead of genetics that can be forgotten within a span of a few generations under adverse conditions (Stalin's way of dealing with nationalities, for example). I do understand that you are probably averse to any suggestions of Finnish-speakers having any identity of their own as it would make your position more untenable in other discussions. Johan Magnus was on a right track around the middle of the page suggesting that there is a reason why constructions of "Finnish identity" apart from Scandinavia are a red cloth to some, and deserve swift judgement as some sort of "Fennomania".
The genetic studies about Finns are a bit of a red herring, as they simply, as far as I know, seem to mostly say that "Finnish people are more related to other Western Europeans than to people to the East". Looking at this on an European scale generally, this is hardly surprising, and it is also worth noting that not any other "identity group" on the continent needs as strict a level of proof of genetic uniqueness as you seem to be demanding specifically of Finnics, whoever they may be here. I am pretty positive that Central Europe is full of "ethnic groups" that differentiate themselves from others despite them being closely genetically related due to the relatively recent huge population changes of the migrations around the fall of Rome.
Interestingly, you provide your own counter-example. Would you be willing to go tell Bulgarians and Greeks that they must "obey the laws of genetics", and that their own considerations of their ethnicities and affinities and whatnot are "scientifically wrong"? I am sure they would feel enlightened by you and return to correct scientific ways. Or not.
Of course for the benefit of the foreign reader I must now point out openly that this all boils down to the language policy in Finland. If it can be denied that Finnish-speakers do not have or share an identity -- and if it can also be argued that Finns are Scandinavians -- then the Fenno-Swedish position is of course much stronger, and criticizing it can be brushed off as nationalism. On the other hand, if we are an "ethnic group" then we should have some sort of protection from the idea that we should have some sort of personal responsibility towards Swedish the language.
For me personally it is a strange idea to suggest that people who have for thousands of years spoken a language that simply does not communicate with Swedes and that has been spared substantial modifications over all that time would have, despite intermarrying over millennia and probably sharing a lot of common ancestors too (correlation does not imply causation!), somehow identified with the Norse, which is the Nordist position.
Ethnicity is all in the head and is, IMO, subjectively justifiable. It's the memes and not the genes, and you shouldn't feel you're under such threat when not everyone subscribes to your newsletter... HuckFinn 10:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you confusing Finnic with Finnish or are you just confused generally? Of course the speakers of a (Balto-)Finnic language are just as diverse as everyone else around! "Finnic peoples" is just as stupid a term as are the terms "Germanic peoples" or "Slavic peoples" because such "macro-linguistic-ethnicities" have no real meaning ethnologically. These topics should really be dealt with in the sense of e.g. "speakers of a Slavic language". Clarifer 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnic peoples

added refs and rephrased the article according to the entrance in Encyclopædia Britannica [1] and removed questionable claims. Therefore the dispute regarding the title should be over. The article might still need some clean up though, therefore I leave the relevant tag up in palce.--Termer 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The Encyclopaedia Britannica isn't the most reliable of sources. (the article there seems to harbour fairly old-fashioned views). 2. The distribution of a language or a language group doesn't necessarily imply genetic relationships or the descent of their speakers. Such an approach is a naive over-simplification of a complex issue (called ethnogenesis) and reflects thinking from the 18th-19th centuries and is far from contemporary thinking. This whole article in its current form seems fairly out-dated. Clarifer 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with Clarifer. Talking about Finnic peoples as if these peoples shared a common ancestry and form a separate genetic group from their neighbours is just nonsense. There's no such thing as Finnic peoples, Germanic peoples or anything of the kind. Europe was populated by a great number of different peoples before the arrival of Indo-European and Finnic languages, most of these peoples are still unknown although some, such as Etruscans and Basques are known. These people weren't replaced by "Indo-European" peoples or "Finnic peoples", they just adopted the languages. This is a similar process to the Irish having adopted English, the Breton having adopted French etc. So not even around 1000 BC would it have been possible to talk about peoples in the way that this article does. Since then, there have been movements of both people and boundaries as well as language change and intermarriage. While both the article Finnish people and Finnic languages are relevant, this article could as well be nominated for deletion. It's trying to prove something that doesn't exist and probably never even did exist. JdeJ 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JdeJ thank you again for sharing your opinions. Please take all claims regarding something that doesn't exist and probably never even did exist to the relevant scholars and the authors. Thanks!--Termer 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's been denying the existance of peoples speaking Finnic languages, the topic of most of the books you googled (except one or two from 1898). It is the so called genetic relationships between these peoples that is in question. JdeJ 08:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JdeJ the genetic relationships are irrelevant regarding the subject. The first studies of anthropology centuries ago already showed that Finnic people in general have no "genetic relationships" (in modern terms) . THE PRE- AND PROTO-HISTORIC FINNS published in 1898 is a good early over view of the studies done back then. The archeology part is outdated but the early studies of anthropology are still interesting I think.--Termer 08:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. Becouse the genetic relationships are irrelevant, the fact is like it was stated before the removal in the article: Finnic Peoples are descendants of a collection of tribal peoples speaking closely related languages of the Finno-Ugric family etc.
It has zero, zip, absolutely nothing to do with anthropology or genetics.

[edit] Vandalism

This article has been vandalized by Clarifer. Please stop compromising the integrity of WP via removing facts sourced from the latest edition of Encyclopædia Britannica thats widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopaedias with not referenced and sourced opinions and commentaries of "genetic relationships", irrelevant to the subject of the article

Please have the article restored according to the facts provided by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica or any other reputable source ASAP. If not replied, latest in 24 hours the editors involved having similar persistent pattern noted also elsewhere in related articles are going to be listed for consideration at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism . Thanks.--Termer 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Forward

I'm sorry to see that the one responsible has not taken the time to clean up the mess left behind. Although since the pattern of replacing sourced facts with unreferenced opinions have stopped, I currently can't see any reasons to list the responsible party for consideration at intervention against vandalism. I agree partly that the entrance at Encyclopedia Britannica could be a bit misleading. Therefore I've came up with alternative source that seems to be much more accurate. I'm going to move forward and replace the current uncourced statements with Finnic people are people speaking the variety of Balto-Finnic and Volga-Finnic languages [2] Please feel free to challenge this, by providing any other reputable source for conformation. Any attempts to replace the sourced facts with not referenced statements by editor{s) that have shown previous persistent pattern, is(are) going to be listed at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism immediately without any further warnings. Thanks! --Termer 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JdeJ, please do not alter the facts on WP. Please provide sources to unreferenced claims such as "can be considered", by whom? "...Whether and to what extent etc." says who? Any addition of commentary that is not sourced and refed is going to be challenged any time by any editor and removed from the article if felt necessary. Thanks!--Termer 20:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

toward the end of the 20th century a more dynamic picture of ethnogenesis emerged is factually incorrect since the anthropology studies of the finnic peoples, both the Baltic-Finnic and the Volgan-Finnic showed that already at least in the 19th century if not earlier. So please find accurate statements and replace this in case anybody really thinks that genetics is relevant in an article that speaks of a linguistic group. If not replied, the section is going to be removed as irrelevant and factually incorrect. The story of genetic relationships is a matter of active ongoing study also feels a "home-made" statement for me. Everybody can have their personal DNA mapped and seen on a printout how it has traveled exactly going back to 10,000 years for 100 bucks from the National Geographic these days. So if thats what the "ongoing study" is all about, it surely feels like irrelevant to an article that is about even a racially diverse linguistic group of peoples--Termer 09:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On The Other Hand. I never thought genetics would be relevant here but since it's still up there I've looked into it. Even though the studies might be still "ongoing", the facts are clear: a rare haplotypes HVS I type is common for Germans, Finno–Ugric populations, Russians and Ukrainians etc. Otherwise these peoples fall within the range of gene diversity seen throughout Europe. [3]

another interesting fact: While the majority of mtDNA diversity in the northern Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Sami is accounted for by haplogroups V and U5b1b1, the southern Swedish Sami have other haplogroups and a frequency distribution similar to that of the Continental European population. Haplogroup Z is found at low frequency in the Sami and Northern Asian populations but is virtually absent in Europe. A recent genetic link between Sami and the Volga-Ural region of Russia has been found, indicative of a more recent contribution of people from the Volga-Ural region to the Sami population as recently as 2700 years ago[4]

that should be it, here is nothing further to study really. The most of the Finnc peoples including southern Samis are average Europeans like Russians and Germans and northern Samis have some special genetic relatives among Northern Asian pouplations and at Volga-Ural region of Russia. If you think it's relevant, please add those facts to the article , but please remove this abstract and strange feeling like "what did you really want to say?" statement about 19th-20-the century thing from up there please! Thanks --Termer 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ [Finnic Peoples] at Encyclopædia Britannica
  2. ^ Nordic Religions in the Viking Age By Thomas Andrew DuBois
  3. ^ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=73451
  4. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16985502&dopt=Citation A recent genetic link between Sami and the Volga-Ural region of Russia.

[edit] A few problems here

1. Currently the text states that Finnic peoples are those speaking a Baltic-Finnic language AND a Volga-Finnic language. The taxonomy of the Uralic languages is a matter of "ongoing study" too, but aren't the Baltic-Finnic languages usually considered a sub group of the Finno-Volgaic languages? Yet another possible candidate for "Finnic peoples" seems to be the speakers of even all of the Finno-Permic languages. Perhaps we should try and reach a consensus on the meaning(s) and definition(s) of the English term "Finnic peoples" (if possible)? 2. What on earth do the finds from the Wolf cave have to do with the Finnic peoples (however these might be defined)? 3. This article seems to harbour fuzzy borders between hard core facts (archeology, records) and legends and interpretations. Sure, it is interesting and relevant to state what is written in the old manuscripts but interpretations based on those (e.g. that Fenni = Finns instead of the Sami) should be clearly demarcated as possibilities and postulations instead of them being presented in a factual manner. I think one step forward has been reaching at least a consensus on the matter that "Finnic peoples" are primarily defined by their native language (and little else). Clarifer 16:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are three good remarks. 1. A clear definition should be used. Finnic would include all Finno-Ugric peoples that aren't Ugric, i.e. even Mordvins and Udmurts. 2. That is a very good question. I can see no reason to keep it in the article and it should be deleted swiftly unless somebody presents a very good reason for keeping it. The way it is put here now, it seems to suggest that the people inhabiting it would have been a Finnic people. Surely nobody is going to make such a claim? 3. Much too true. JdeJ 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Since there is no need to find out the meaning(s) of the "Finnic peoples" that should be common knowledge (including what exactly are Finno-Permic languages) to anybody that wants to contribute to the article. In case any editors here are nor familiar with the subject and still feel would like to improve the article, please study the sources provided here earlier with pages of books and researches available regarding the languages, the cultures, the ancient religions and mythologies etc. of the Finnic peoples...

the mentioning of Baltic-Finnic languages are considered to be a sub group of the Finno-Volgaic languages is yet another opinion. Please provide the source "who says so" and feel free to add the opinion to the article. The facts so far have been clear, the Finnic peoples are divided by geographical locations, some live near the Baltic Sea, some around the Volga river. The opinion that Baltic-Finnic peoples and their languages are a sub group of Volga-Finnic is based on a theory that the Baltic-Finnic peoples migrated to the coasts of Baltic sea from the Volga region. Since it's impossible to prove, it remains to be an opinion and a theory, not a fact. PS. Almost forgot. The fenni mentioned by Tacitus. And why exactly is it necessary yet again to point out that should be clear anyway? Is that really so big deal that Tacitus once called the fenni "disgustingly pure", so that every time the fenni comes up it is absolutely necessary to point multiple times toward the Sami? So please do not attempt ever again apply personal ethnic bias toward this article or use these kinds of not sourced judgemental opinions on WP in general. Thanks again!--Termer 10:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem should be quite obvious. The article is named Finnic peoples, yet it is almost completely about just the Baltic Finns. The section listing "Descendants of Finnic Peoples" mention only the Baltic Finns. I'll remove the paragraph about Wolf cave, by the way. It has nothing to do with this article. JdeJ 10:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how this is a problem since the Baltic Finns, Finnish people and Estonians are the major modern representatives who have maintained their languages. But I agree that all other Finnic peoples should be better covered. Specially the ones that are almost extinct sometimes due to exterminations throughout the history, whose languages and cultures have only survived in historic records. But not to worry, I'm working on the culture chapter, also the ancient religions and mythology etc. so all those peoples should get the coverage they deserve ASAP. Thanks!--Termer

BTW, thanks for bringing my attention to genetics... I would have never thought it would be relevant but since some editors did think it was important and kept insisting with mentioning the genetics in the article. but unfortunately didn't take the time to replace the opinions with facts from reliable sources, I went ahead and fixed the problem.--Termer 09:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy... Are we sure that everyone of us understands the nomenclature involved in the Uralic linguistics? The language group 'Uralic languages' comprises of 'Ugric', 'Samoyedic' and 'Finno-Permic' languages. The Finno-Permic languages comprise of two groups, the 'Finno-Volgaic' languages and the 'Permic' languages. The 'Finno-Volgaic' languages comprise of many sub groups and one of these is called the 'Baltic-Finnic' languages. (There is also the term 'Volgaic languages', a term used only for Mari and Mordva although such a consept is obsolete.) This modern classification has nothing to do with geographics (rather, the classical nomenclature with geographical names is misleading). True, the taxonomy isn't certain but this is the current model and can be found in any basic book on Uralics or Finno-Ugric studies. NOW, the significant question is: what does the English term 'Finnic people" stand for? Is it a shortening of 'FINNO-Permic', FINNO-Volgaic or perhaps Baltic-FINNIC or is it a completely new English term with no established meaning? Where and in what sense was this term first mentioned in English literature? This link [9] from the University of Helsinki uses it as a synonym for "Baltic-Finnic". Prof. Johanna Laakso uses the term as a synonym for Baltic-Finnic too [10], see especially the foot note 2. I'm not sure in what meaning a standard English dictionary or an average Englishman uses the term (if at all). Clarifer 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That’s an interesting question Clarifer! "Where and in what sense was this term first mentioned in English literature?" . Thanks for bringing it up! Please let me know when you or anybody else finds out, one of the books or researches mentioning the Finnic peoples listed as ref’s should surely mention the fact too at some place! Although I'm afraid it just transformed from Finns to Finnic peoples at one point to make a difference between the modern Finns like Germans got the name from Germanic peoples. I think the book from the 19th century mentioned here somewhere was still referring to all the Finnic peoples as Finns in general. So the term Finnic peoples most likely became to use by the researchers when Finland became an independent country and nation in the beginning of the 20th century. But that’s just my bet.--Termer 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. regarding the opinions of Prof. Johanna Laakso how exactly finnic languages group with each other, I would rather not get into the same discussion for the second time. All the relevant questions you had, the answers are in the article and in the provided sources. And even though if I personally would agree with you or Prof. Johanna Laakso, I can’t overweight this with the books listed only about Volga Finns on 12 pages and research listed on 2 pages available online that speak of something else. Please feel free to add the opinions of Prof. Johanna Laakso somewhere in the article later on as a minority viewpoint if you really think it would be important to point out. Thanks--Termer 07:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS.I've added the most common modern interpretations (according to The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics By Angela Marcantonio) of Finnic languages to Finno-Volgaic languages, please feel free to add any other interpretations and work futher with the article... it needs a lot of work; therefore I left the cleanup tag up there. thanks--Termer 08:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data

Can we obtain a breakdown of Haplogroup Y-DNA for the Uralic peoples ?? Hxseek 11:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're taliking about the Haplogroup N Y-DNA? and the image? Yes please, all help is appreciated, I can put everything needed on the image. So far the only visual aid I had was the line at [11] but it seems there is no more visual data available. Please direct me to any relevant source that lists any specific geographical locations how it has spread so that we could get it right. Thanks--Termer 02:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out actually, the current table covers mtDNA Haplogroup descriptions, meaning maternal ancestry, marked on the map with yellow lines and currently only the oldest ones are graphically represented. The paternal Y-DNA ancestry are shown with the blue lines but the data breakdown should be added to the text indeed. Going to look into it ASAP, any help welcome. Thanks--Termer 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. I am interested to see the proportion of R1a, R1b, N, etc. I have some data pertaining to R1a and R1b percentages (10 and 2 % respectively) {Rosser et al}. (2000). [These are rather low compared to Germans, Swedes, Slavs, etc. So maybe N has a large weighting, ? plus others]. Hxseek 10:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it, here is the Y-DNA haplogroup N [12] distribution breakdown from 2006.--Termer 08:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Intriguing. I have only read 'FINLAND: Regional differences among the Finns: A Y-chromosomal perspective' thus far. Its findings were I1a 28%, R1b 4%, R1a 7%, N3 58%. From this one may conclude that a significant proportion of the males in Finland indeed have uralic ancestry, and the distribution of N3 closely correlated with distribution of the language, thus suggesting that Uralics may well be genetically related. The other significant componenent was I1a, the scandinavian gene- suggesting relation with sweden, etc. Interestingly little R1b (which is prevelant in western europe, incl Sweden & Germany) and little R1a (eastern Europe).

These findings are different from the (maternal) mtDNA results which place Finland almost completely 'Erupoean', whereas the Y results place it mostly Uralic. As the study suggests, there could be reasons for this, such as , biologically , events take a lot longer to be 'detected' on mtDNA, so the European weighing in mtDNA may relate to Finland being repopulated primarily by European , Paelolithic peoples, with later Uralic migrations. What the study did not suggest, is that the males lineage could have been predominantly Uralic because when 'hordes' migrate, it is usually men who go on the journey, and take local women as brides. Hxseek 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Are you sure you're not confusing a) linguistics, b) geography and c) ancestry and making a classical circular deduction? Both the Uralic and the Indo-European languges are equally "European" since both language groups have existed on the continent for approximately equally long. Both R1 and N3 have also existed approximately equally long (ca. 10000 years) west of the Ural mountains so, both Y-DNA markers are equally "European" too. Also, according to the latest estimates N3 predates the the Uralic languages (and the Indo-European languages) by 4000-7000 years, so, again, it is a huge over simpliication to state that N3 represens "a Uralic(-speaking?) ancesty". Another thing to consider: the fact that the Uralic languages were named "Uralic" after a mountain range really only tells about the world view back in the 19th century and little else. The phenomenon is akin to all white people being termed "Caucasian" after the Caucasus mountains though that area has no particular relation to white people outside the strange ideas from the German Blumenbach back in the 18-19th centuries. Lastly: what hordes? Are you also thinking that when Europe became Indo-Europeanised, people from the Middle-East moved in hordes and married, yes, what? Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is again this: human migration, cultural diffusion, ethnogenesis, ancestry...these are far from simple events easy to trace back in history. Mostly the process seems to have been far more complex (but probably similar everywhere) than it fist appears. Clarifer 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that this page is not meant for sharing opinions or views how any of the facts should be interpreted. But it’s a talk page made for editors to discuss any improvements to the associated article. Thanks--Termer 08:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that ethnogenesis is obviously very complex process. Yet the article may benefit from the above data Y DNA haplogroup data? ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 10:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it needs a little work though to get it in but one day it's going to be there. --Termer 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are incorrect information in the main article

This is a correction with references on parts of the text about population genetics involving mtDNA haplogroup U5 and y-chromosomal haplogroup N.

The following statement is incorrect: “The Sami also have U5 lineages in their population indicating that it may have introduced during their migration into these northern territories.”

Much research have shown that the Sami people have U5 lineages that migrated from Western Europe after the last Ice Age. References for a Western European origin of U5 are found in for instance these articles:

Delghandi et al. 1997

Richards et al. 2000

Tambets et al. 2004

Achilli et al. 2005


Haplogroup N is in general most frequent in Finnish males. Therefore the following statement is only partly true only according to new research: “One of the men in a group of Eurasian Clan peoples who was probably born in Siberia within the last 10,000 years gave rise to the LLY22G marker which defines haplogroup N in the Genographic tree. Today his descendants effectively trace a migration of Uralic-speaking peoples during the last several thousands of years like the Sami people, the people of Northern Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia.”

It has been known for a long time that haplogroup N is very frequent not only in the Finnish and Swedish Saami, but most frequent in the general Finnish male population. Reference: Regional differences among the Finns: A Y-chromosomal perspective by Tuuli Lappalainen et al.


Haplogroup N has a total general frequency of 58.21% in Finland and extreme frequencies are found in:

  1. Savo 78.5% of haplogroup N
  2. East Finland 70.98% of haplogroup N
  3. Northern Ostrobotnia 65.12% of haplogroup N
  4. South western Finland 60% of haplogroup N

According to Tambets et al. 2004:

  1. Saami in general: N 47.2%
  2. Finns in general: N 63.2%
  3. Finnish Saami: N 55.1% (the highest frequency in the Saami).


Haplogroup N has not been in Finland for thousands of years, it seems to have come with newer immigrations from Siberia. Norhtern Finland was settled particularly from 1500 AD according to Pitkänen, 1994 or they came even later: “The major colonization of northern Finland has taken place after the 16th century” (Reference : Pitkänen K (1994) Suomen väestön historialliset kehityslinjat).


You can read more about haplogroup N in these new research articles:

“A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe” by Siiri Rootsi et al. 2006

“The most frequent subclade N3, arose probably in the region of present day China, and subsequently experienced serial bottlenecks in Siberia and secondary expansions in eastern Europe.” (End of quote from Abstract).


“Y-chromosome haplogroup N dispersals from south Siberia to Europe” by Miroslava Derenko et al. 2007

“Age calculation of STR variation within subcluster N3a1 indicated that its first expansion occurred in south Siberia [approximately 10,000 years (ky)] and then this subcluster spread into Eastern Europe where its age is around 8 ky ago. Meanwhile, younger subcluster N3a2 originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region) approximately 4 ky ago.” (End of quote from Abstract).


Please do not spread errorneous information but check what experts conclude in their reports on these topics.(Aprerogative 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Nothing you say here is any different in the article, so whats up? Well, the only thing perhaps that the U5 never came from the Western Europe, non of the sources you provided say that anyway: but was the first that crossed the Caucasus while the U-mom was coming out of Africa. So the U5 arrived to the era from South, not from west. Regarding Haplogroup N, why don't you just add the facts to the article--Termer 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)