Jump to content

Talk:Sámi peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Head-scratching sentence

[edit]

At the time I'm typing this, this article contains the sentence "While Norwegians moved north to gradually colonise the coast of modern-day Troms and Finnmark to engage in an export-driven fisheries industry prior to the 19th century, they showed little interest in the harsh and non-arable inland populated by reindeer-herding Sámi." Okay, so who were the people living along the coast before the Norwegians got there (if it wasn't the Saami, who are implied to be dwelling in the "harsh and non-arable" interior? If NOBODY was living there, justify the use of the word "colonize" instead of "settle" or just "move to". Land that isn't previously occupied can't be colonized. It can be settled. This isn't just a little "gotcha" about using the wrong word. I believe that the REASON for using the wrong word is to bias us against the Norwegian settlers.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Colonization does not require taking land from other peoples. It simply requires taking land, whether or not it has been, ever was, or still is occupied territory. I think you're reading too much into this unnecessarily. 2601:19E:8200:1840:1D75:1869:4BEA:E489 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another head-scratching sentence

[edit]

As I'm typing this, the article says "Around 1500, they" [the Sámi] "started to tame these animals" [reindeer, hitherto wild] into herding groups, becoming the well-known reindeer nomads, often portrayed by outsiders as following the traditional Sámi lifestyle." The sentence makes it sound like the nomadic reindeer-herding lifestyle DID become the traditional lifestyle of the Sámi. If outsiders thus portray it as such, why would that be noteworthy? I mean, if the traditional lifestyle of the Maasai centers around their cattle, an encylopedic sentence with no xenophobic axe to grind would be "The traditional Maasai lifestyle centers around cattle", while the hypothetical sentence "Outsiders portray the traditional Maasai lifestyle as being centered around their cattle" conveys some kind of grievance against what outsiders may say, even if it's true. This is not neutral and encyclopedic.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Later on I find the sentence "Traditionally the Sámi lived and worked in reindeer herding groups called siidat, which consist of several families and their herds". So, this sentence says that lifestyle WAS (or is) traditional, without qualifying that statement by saying "according to portrayals by outsiders". Shouldn't someone write in and protest that sentence by saying that it comes from an outsider point of view? I've often stated one Wikipedia article to be contradicting another (which is ignored with the disingenuous "Wikipedia can't be used as a source for Wikipedia" as if it's no defect for one article to state "Down isn't up" while another states "Down is up"), but today is the first time that I can remember finding one sentence contradicting another sentence IN THE SAME article.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
I see no conflict here for what seems to me should be an obvious reason. History of the Norse people (and many other peoples) wasn't first written by them, but by outside observers. I honestly don't see any conflict between saying "Others portrayed them," and, "They were..." I don't see those as contradictory at all. Economy of words is best. It is enough to say once "Outsiders portrayed," then for the remainder of the article simply state what the outsiders said, simply because that is what the sources say. Saami, much like the Celts, didn't leave much for written records. What would be the purpose of repeating words already written to establish the point of view of sources, over and over in the article. Readers should be able to get the point from the first time. From there, it's just unnecessary. 2601:19E:8200:1840:1D75:1869:4BEA:E489 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples or People?

[edit]

Is the plural justified and do Sámi really identify themselves as "peoples"? Note that they have one anthem, one flag, one university, joint international political representation, etc. Anyway, to describe Sámi as "peoples" the article needs sources. Where are they?

Note also this sentence in the article 

Finland recognized the Sámi as a "people" in 1995

where "people" is used in singular. --Rießler (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rießler: The title of the page was moved a year ago, see this move "discussion": Talk:Sámi_peoples/Archive_3#Requested_move_22_October_2023. I haven't noticed the discussion, otherwise I would have strongly opposed it because of its poor rationale; linguistic affiliation is distinct from ethnic identity, and in the case of the Sámi, linguistic diversity does not entail that Sámi would self-identify as distinct ethnicities along the lines of the scholarly linguistic classification of the Sámi languages. The closure after seven days with only two brief "support" !votes just endorsing the non-argument of the move rationale was obviously premature. It's too late to contest the closure, but a new move discussion that explicitly points out the flaws of the first move (both discussion and closure were flawed) should bring back a title that better conforms[1] to Wikipedia's naming conventions like WP:COMMONNAME. –Austronesier (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2024

[edit]

Sámi peoples → Sámi people – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The Ngram from the above discussion shows that singular people is much more common than the plural. For further confirmation, here's a declaration from the Sámi Council: We, the Saami, constitute one people, and national borders shall not infringe on our national unity.[2]. The earlier title Sámi (until October 2023) can be ambiguous with respect to Sámi languages, so Sámi people is more WP:PRECISE. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the above discussion and the previous move discussion: @Rießler,@Treetoes023,@ModernDayTrilobite,@Estar8806. (Austronesier is already aware of the discussion). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PLURAL. Theparties (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The Ngrams make a strong case for WP:COMMONNAME, and the declaration from the Sámi Council corroborates that the idea of a unitary Sámi people has currency within the community and isn't just being imposed from outside. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Also in Google scholar, the ratio of singular vs. plural is around 10:1. The page move last year from singular to plural was made without any supporting evidence about actual usage, and under the erroneous premises that ethnic identities always correspond with linguistic entities. In the case of the Sámi, linguistic diversity does not entail that Sámi would self-identify as multiple seperate ethnicities along the lines of the current scholarly linguistic classification of the Sámi varieties, which are treated as individual languages rather than dialects of a single Sámi language. –Austronesier (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes more sense Yesyesmrcool (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sámi_peoples&oldid=1264360483"