Talk:Finno-Ugric peoples/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

I removed the following text in the intro:

Some theories have suggested that the modern speakers of Finno-Ugric languages would have originated from a single ancient people, but these theories are not supported by DNA evidence.

This text make it sound like genetic testing could "prove" the existence of such a proto-tribe, and the fact that it fails to do so shows that there was no such ethnos. I have so far not seen a single genetic study of an ethnic group that has shown *anything* conclusive in such matters.--Berig 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously about Haplogroup N (Y-DNA). It should be old news that "LLY22G marker that defines haplogroup N, was one of the men in a group of Eurasian Clan peoples , probably born in Siberia within the last 10,000 years,- Today his descendants effectively trace a migration of Uralic speaking peoples during the last several thousand years." please see the National Geographic, for example the the Genographic project at https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com FFI.--Termer (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. One thing is for sure, the article needs a lot of work. Please do not merge in the future, there are more than enough sources [1] out there on the subject.--Termer (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just making a note of this that all unsourced personal commentary is going to be removed from this article ASAP. All such phrases like "sometimes used in academic writing"; Therefore it makes little sense to speak of "Finno-Ugric people"; "there is some debate over whether Finno-Ugric is a valid genealogical subgroup of Uralic languages," have not been sourced and tell me that whoever has put it in there has no idea what he/she is talking about. Please rephrase/rewrite the sections according to WP:RS or else any claim that doesn't have a clear citation to it is going to be simply removed.--Termer (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BS article?

OK Kwamikagami, what seems to be the problem? Why do you remove sourced facts from the article and keep inserting unsourced commentary into this article? --Termer (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Section restored.

As for the commentary, perhaps you could reword it? We should make it clear that there is no such thing as "Finno-Ugric peoples" in any coherent sense. I mean, we could have an article on "Mongol-Iroquois peoples", but what would be the point? Because people do reify linguistic constructs, as seen in the FU festival, this topic may have some minor relevance, but it's not an ethnic article, which is the implication of the title. kwami (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious that you're not familiar with the subject. Once there are festivals of Finno-Ugric peoples where countries are represented on the level of state leaders, your personal opinions and claims that you keep inserting here don't make any sense. Where do you get this stuff? I'm going to list all the finno-Ugric organizations later on into this article, restore the facts about common festivals and any claim that is not sourced and completely far out, is simply going to be removed. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "Turko-Magyar peoples" would be a much more coherent article. The Turks have had a strong ethno-cultural influence on the Hungarians. Language does not necessarily correlate with ethnicity, culture, religion, or much else. kwami (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a place to publish your own ideas and opinions, and it's not my intention to get into a silly argument here. Please, in case you have a WP:RS that you can back up your opinions with, do not hesitate to cite it in the article text. As far as I'm concerned, there is common Finno-Ugrc identity, why else would the people and the countries form organizations and held festivals. Anything concerning "Turko-Magyar peoples", please address those questions at a relevant place.--Termer (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason there are UFO conventions. It's pseudoscience. There is no Finno-Ugric culture, religion, or ethnicity. This is a linguistic construct, and a people are read into it. But that people is pure fantasy. These aren't my own opinions, but complaints that I've heard from historical and comparative linguists. As with most pseudoscience, it's hard to find criticism in print, because who's going to waste their time getting something like that published? Now, if the article were about something substantial, such as what we can reconstruct of the culture of the people ancestral to the Finnic and Ugric languages, that would be a different matter entirely, and a very interesting article. But what we have here is a linguistic construct used to justify claims of an ethnicity, which the linguistics does not support, and which has no other justification. It's fantasy dressed up to look reliable. kwami (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

UFO's are getting discussed at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly [2] like the Finno-Ugric peoples? Well, I hope that you do find your sources hat back up what you have heard.--Termer (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ethnicity plays into politics. There's a lot of pseudo-history in political circles. Of course, ethnicity can be constructed, and that may be what's happening with these festivals, so that if linguists were to suddenly abandon the Finno-Ugric proposal,* a "Finno-Ugric people" would still exist. (Though many Hungarians would likely continue to object.) But in general, claims such as this (and there are many of them) have little justification.

*For example, there have been recent claims that Finnic and Ugric are merely two branches of Uralic, and that there is so such language family as Finno-Ugric, though I admit it's doubtful whether that idea will go mainstream. kwami (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ethnicity? how is that relevant? I have no idea what are you talking about! Again, no sources no argument. The only occasion I've heard about nonexistant "Finno-Ugric peoples" is by some Hungarian nationalists who'd like to distance themselves from Khanty and Mansi, and who'd rather be related to Hunns etc. This is not a serious discussion, once it's good enough for Hungarian state leaders to go to the festivals and congresses, that settles it. Finno-Ugric peoples is widely accepted term designating the speakers of Finno-Ugric languages like Romanic people are speakers of Romanic languages. It has nothing to do with someone's ethnicity and it doesn't mean that the cultures are or should be even close to each other. So again, I have no idea what exactly are you talking about and what are you after.--Termer (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Then could you explain what the relevance of this article is? And articles like it (Altaic peoples, Sino-Tibetan peoples, etc.) It's not ethnicity, it's not linguistics, it's not culture, it's not anthropology, it's not history ... why should these peoples be lumped together? As opposed to lumping their languages together, I mean. If we have an article on Finno-Ugric peoples, readers will naturally come to the conclusion that the Finnic and Ugric peoples have something in common that sets them apart as a group. Since we have an article on Finno-Ugric languages, it is evidently something other than language. But what? I mean, if it's not the people, what else is there? It's not defined in the article, only left to the reader's imagination. If it's only the festival, then we should move the article to the festival. Same for X mythology. If various mythologies are grouped together under a title X, the implication is that they have something to do with each other. (Granted, we no longer have a Finno-Ugric mythology article, but there are other equivalent articles out there.) kwami (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You made yourself clear already that you're against 'lumping together the Finno-Ugric peoples'. Please take this concern either to the World Congress of Finno-Ugrian Peoples. Also contacting the leaders of Hungary, Finland, Estonia might help to get this concern addressed. Other than that, please stop misusing this talk page for a general discussion about the subject and address your concerns by editing the article according to published sources out there.--Termer (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I take it from your inability to answer that this subject of this article is meaningless. This is not a general discussion; it's a question about whether this article should even exist. kwami (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I this is not a joke than why don't you list the article at AfD. Other than that I think your edits are unreasonable and disruptive. Please start editing the article according to the sources out there instead of your personal , very strong opinions. Thanks! --Termer (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a legitimate topic here, based on the linguistic evidence. The probem is that we're not covering it, and are instead just throwing peoples together and letting the reader try to figure it out. Anyway, I found a ref sounding the proper note of caution when trying to draw modern conclusions from ancient linguistic connections. kwami (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

we're just throwing peoples together? Well, if the peoples have they own world congresses and cultural festivals that get hosted and visited by the state leaders, it seems to me that they are throwing themselves together. Perhaps they feel they have something in common? the languages they speak perhaps?--Termer (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

bad genetics ref

Richard Villems, et al. (Reconstruction of Maternal lineages of Finno-Ugric speaking people and some remarks on their Paternal inheritance, Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Turku 1998) does not support the claims it was used to reference. It only looks at Estonians and Saami. In the conclusion, they state,

Can we find, inside this Pan-European homogeneity of mtDNA haplogroups, certain Finno-Ugric variants? We think that it is possible. Not necessarily Finno-Ugric, but certainly regional.

In other words, not only have they not found any genetic signature for Finno-Ugric (they repeatedly speak of "Northern European Finno-Ugric"—that is, northern Finnic), but what they think may be possible to find isn't necessarily Finno-Ugric either. Therefore I deleted the ref as irrelevant to this article. To support this article, the study would have to compare Finnic and Ugric peoples, not just a subset of Finnic, and find markers that they share which are not shared by Samoyedic, Germanic, or Slavic peoples, unless as a substratum. kwami (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

bad genetics ref indeed, what an outdated source. 10 years is a lifetime in modern genetics and it should be replaced with currently known facts. So please kwami let me know when you're ready to let others to edit this article as well. For example today there is no debate about The ethnic relationship of the Finns and Saami. The Sami are a distinct group of Europeans unlike the rest of Finno-ugrians who are genetically average Europeans. The Sami however, the two most frequent maternal linages are the first Homo sapiens inhabitants of Europe and the second, descendants of common ancestors with Catalonians and the Basque people, one of the earliest inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula. FI: Niskanen, Markku (2002). "The Origin of the Baltic-Finns" (PDF). The Mankind Quarterly. Retrieved 2008-10-06.--Termer (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also, I think the beginning of this article in current state is just silly. Finno-Ugric peoples is not just something-sometimes used in academic writing. The Finno-Ugric peoples are speakers of Finno-Ugric languages, that's it. And to claim that there is no common identity is just too far out and contradicts the facts in the article itself at the time when cultural festivals and world congresses are hold that get participated even by the state leaders. So there is still a lot of personal unreferenced commentary remaining in this article that needs to be removed and replaced with facts that can do the talking just fine.--Termer (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a common identity may be developing, but it is recent (a century, maybe?) and depends on discoveries in linguistics. Your recent edits account for that and I have no problem with them. I just want this to be explicit, not like so many of these "X peoples" articles which never properly define what the subject of the article is.

I'm confused about the passage on László Marácz. He seemed to have been meant as a reference, but was placed in the text. As a reference he'd seem to be redundant, but he doesn't fit into the text either--a nationalist who denies Ugric, yet states the discovery of Ugric was a psychological blow? I'm afraid some clarification is needed for me to understand what is meant by that. I tried cleaning that up along with some other fixes, but am afraid I may have messed it up. kwami (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me who sees a contradiction between sourced text in Finland and Hungary, language origins and language history have always been relevant to national identity vs. unsourced commentary Finno-Ugric is not an ethnic group based on common culture or identity, but rather a linguistic construct. First of all, the whole modern world in Europe shares pretty much common culture these days. And calling modern nations that share a common linguistic identity "ethnic group" doesn't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS.László Marácz, named a Hungarian nationalist by the source [3], is pretty clear about it what he says. He denies the existence of any 'Finno-Ugric peoples' and calls the mainstream views on the subject the Finno-Ugric language theory that is seriously faulty. Seems like relevant as an alternative viewpoint. Unless you think it's too WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE?--Termer (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistically Marácz is completely wacko. The Ugrian connection is transparent. The Finno-Ugric connection is much less apparent, but is as well demonstrated as Indo-European (much of which is also not immediately apparent). In fact, Uralic as a whole is one of only a handful of language families which are not immediately obvious (like Dravidian or Kradai are) but which have been thoroughly demonstrated through linguistic reconstruction--besides IE, in the Old World I think there's only Austronesian to compete with it.

However, this is not a linguistic article (thus my initial objection to its content), and Marácz's views are culturally very important. He (and others like him) should not be presented as a scientific alternative, but definitely need to be included for their historical and even contemporary importance. Culturally, you might speak of "Turko-Magyar peoples" rather than "Finno-Ugric peoples". (After the breakup of proto-Ugrian, the Magyars got a huge cultural input from the Chuvash, for example.) Since ethnic identity is based to a large extent on self perception, I think this should definitely be included in the article. We have an article on this very topic (or at least we used to) which we should link to.

As for the "always been relevant to national identity" quote, no, I don't see a contradiction. In fact, they support each other. The Finns and Magyars have long identified themselves through language, just as the Basques have, and for much the same reason. (You could apply that quote just as accurately to the Basques.) However, they didn't see a Finno-Ugric connection (or in the case of Hungary, even a Ugric connection) any more than they saw a connection with Basque. (I think the Finns were probably always aware of Finnic, but I can't be sure; Marácz makes it clear that Hungarians refuted Ugric, let alone a Finnic or Samoyedic connection, even when it was pointed out.)

"the whole modern world in Europe shares pretty much common culture these days." Yes, but that's a topic for European peoples. The point here is that there isn't a specific Finno-Ugric culture, or even a common Finno-Ugric identity apart from the odd society or festival.

"calling modern nations that share a common linguistic identity 'ethnic group' doesn't make any sense to me." Nor does it make any sense to me. My primary objection to this article was precisely that point: it strongly implied that Finno-Ugric was an ethnic group, or at least an ethnic relationship, because it presumed that all these peoples are legitimately classified together as peoples, not as languages. kwami (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the last point I think you should take to the relevant WP article since according to it an 'Ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctivenes...of common linguistic...real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other group.So, according to WP Ethnic group article Finno-Ugric peoples can be easily defined as one.

As of the Basques, never heard that there is common identity between Finno-Ugrians and the Basques. Other than an understanding that both speak non-Indo European languages. The Sami are genetically related to the Basques though, so it might be that there is some common identity feeling among those peoples, don't know.--Termer (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Termer, please read my comments more carefully before you respond. I don't make half the claims you think I do. Like this last: I don't claim there is any common identity between the FU and the Basque. That's precisely the point! Before the advent of linguistic philology, the Finns and Magyars no more identified with each other than they did with the Basques. That is, none of them identified with each other.

You had said, "calling modern nations that share a common linguistic identity 'ethnic group' doesn't make any sense to me", repeating one of my arguments to criticizing me for a claim I never made. Now you've changed your mind to say that they are an ethnic group. I'd thought we were finally starting to agree on this. Okay, I'll take it up stretching the definition of "ethnic group" on that article. (Since some people identify with their pets, is "mammals" and ethnic group? In case it isn't obvious, I'm being sarcastic.) kwami (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying Finno-ugric peoples are an ethnic group, I personally even don't care if they are or not. It was the definition given in WP article that makes it open to interpretations. The way I personally understand the term "ethnic group" is a group of people that have not been defined as a nation yet. Also, a nation can consist of many ethnic groups. But what we are dealing with here is a group of modern nations, some ethnic groups + the historic aspect, meaning, the finno-ugrians most likely were a tribe or an ethnic group some 3 thousands + years ago. (PS. regarding identifying with animals, the only guy who can speak the language was Dr. Dolittle I believe.)

On the Finns and Magyars no more identified with each other than they did with the Basques. Sure that was ages ago, when nobody knoew any better and Hungarinas wanted to identify themselves with Scythians and Sumerians etc. I mean back then it wasn't a communication age exactly and people didn't have opportunities to get educated and interact with each other. Nowadays where such boundaries are no more, the peoples are free to identify with each other based on the related languages. And that's seems like a reason why there are Finno-Ugric societies and congresses and festivals etc.--Termer (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was a long time ago. However, as you've pointed out, Hungarian nationalists continue to deny the validity of Ugric and Finno-Ugric. That clearly shows that theirs is not a shared common identity, at least among nationalists.

Usually when peoples identify with each other based on language, it's because it is apparent to them that the languages are related, and not something they need to learn in school, and which nationalists could plausibly deny. So, for example, Slavs share a common identity, as do the Chinese, and Polynesians, and Germans, and Latins, and many others. Finns and Hungarians, however, are as distant and Icelanders and Bengalis, who have no appreciable shared common identity even though they're taught about Indo-European in school.

Yes, there are FU societies, just as there are IE societies. Perhaps more so, because the FU languages are seen as unusual for Europe. (But I have my doubts: there's Aryan identity, which is Indic and Germanic, and was very influential in its day.) The question is whether these groups affect the sense of identity of the average person. Perhaps—but perhaps no more than the English identify with the Germans, who are linguistically much closer. That certainly is a legitimate topic for this article, and is why I never redirected it the way I did Uralic peoples or Altaic peoples.

A FU peoples article could discuss the original proto-Finno-Ugric ethnos and trace its history leading up to modern peoples. That would be a good article. Or it could cover the effects that linguistic discoveries have had on the self-image of these same modern peoples. That could also be a good article. I just object (not so much to this article anymore, but to others) to throwing a bunch of peoples together just because their languages are related, and leave it to the reader to assume some extra-linguistic commonality which may or may not actually exist. I mean, Semitic is a clearly valid linguistic family, but Jews will often object to anti-Arab sentiment being called "Antisemitism", because they claim Arabs are not Semites. And you've pointed out the problem of Finns trying to distance themselves from Sami. We can't assume peoples form a coherent whole or share any sort of identity just because linguists can prove that their languages are related. kwami (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

it is quite simple really, it will need a reference to a reliable source stating explicitly that there is a a sense of ethnic relation between modern finno-ugric peoples, or that the finno-ugric peoples have the characteristics of and ethnic group such as shared myths of origin, shared cultural elements, etc. Just because a group is historically related to another group that does not mean that it is an ethnic group. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think it would be quite weird to call modern nations all together an ethnic group. Which doesn't mean that there isn't any common identities among those nations based on the languages. Which again, article already has sourced facts written into it. So I think we can end this discussion here.--Termer (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hanti People

For the English speaking writers. Pronouce word horse as Arabs do, (hard h), and transfer this letter H to form the first letter in name Hanti. H (h) is not cyrillic X of which you use kh. Please do not mix the latinized cyrillic y to kyrillic Y(y) in place of the cyrillic I (i). Thus, Y (y) and I (i) have been both transliterated in English language as y. The mixture of linguistical soap is ready. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Spread of Finno-Ugrian languges in Europe

These languages are fluorishing in three independend courtries namely; Estonia, Finland and Hungary as majority languages of local population. These languages are still spoked as minority languages in Austria, Slovakia, Roumania, Serbia and Kroatia and in Russian fedederation in Hanti- Mansia (Ugrian branch) and in Latvia, Sweden, and Norway and in Russian Federation (Finnish branch). One interesting point is, when being part of Soviet Union, the Estonian language was declining but since 01.01.1992 has been strenghtened with second independence all the time. But in Russian Federaration the languages are dissapearing according to the Russian statistics. Strange situation. To where do these people dissapear? They just form part of so called non-Russian Russians. When the Soviet Union still existed, the total numbers of Ingrians (inkeriläiset) was estimated to be less than 8.000 + 16.000 in Soviet Estonia). But when Finland gave them right to settle back in Finland there appeared (from where?) in one stroke more than 50.000 Ingrians (of Finnish roots) which were ready to move to Finland. Statistical error in Soviet statistical system or what? The same appears to be the case with Volga bend Finns in Soviet and Russian statistics. I have not taken Sami and Nenetsi people in these lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.122.217 (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They're originally Mongoloid.

THERE'S EVEN PROOF. That being said, I want the part about them being related to Europeans removed, and if it isn't, I will. I also want to know (I don't) what Siberian peoples they are really related to. I'll do some searching, but I heard it was the Uralic and Yukaghir peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GooglePedia12 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you followed the new researches you would be surprised. They claim the ancestors of Finno-ugric peoples came from territory of present-day Ukraine and spread to north and east.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What are these "researches"? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Google for them. Enough to say that the "European" Corded Ware and Yamna cultures shaped the Finno-Ugric peoples too. Vast territories of Eastern Europe belonged to Finno-Ugric tribes before they got Slavicized. Finno-Ugric peoples at the Volga river are one of the blondest nations on Earth. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some Finno-Ugric peoples descend genetically from Corded Ware (and Yamna?) culture (but not only from them), but the language was brought by Mongoloids from Asia. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that the ancestors of the "mongoloid looking" Khantys in Siberia came from the southern steppes (or according to another theory from Eastern Europe)? Their ancestors belonged to the Andronovo culture. Due to the intermarriages between Khanty and local "mongoloid" Siberian tribes the Khantys became a racially mixed people. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Section of Finno-ugric identity

This section is biased, Hungarian academics and historians do not deny Finno-ugric origin (there are very good experts about it) and this article deals with opinions of Hungarian nationalist laymen? We should cite Hungarian academics in connection with this theme.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, laymen make something like 99.9999% of every society, so I don't think we should forget them altogether, no matter how wrong their views may be. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations:Sweden

The given number of Finno-Ugric peoples in Sweden to be 507,600 cannot possibly be right. It is by far to high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.65.77 (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's far too high only if you're thinking of the traditionally Finno-Ugric speaking population. Most of this number comprises relatively recently emigrated Finns. Cf. Demographics of Sweden#Ethnicity. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 16:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Collage

This section seems to list:

• 10 Finns
• 6 Hungarians
• 5 Estonians
• 5 Sami
• 1 Izhoran
• 1 Mari
• 1 Udmurt

Not quite balanced on any scale just yet. If this aims for diversity, I'd expect including at minimum also at least one representative of the Komi, one or two of the Mordvins (though we seem not to have a category for them yet), and one or two Ob-Ugrians. Alternately, if this is supposed to be in proportion to the sizes of the peoples, the Finn/Hungarian ratio is the wrong way around, for starters… --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there is not definete criteria and I've tried to make it portion, but most articles don't have photos, moreover there are not so much famous people from minor nations. You have to accept that fact.--Xoncha (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of photos is a restriction, yes. If we cannot get together a particularly wide selection, maybe it would be a good idea to cut this down to 25 or 20 for now. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to do it, I absolutely don't see any problem with that --Xoncha (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Having republics

"Some other Finno-Ugric peoples have (sic) autonomous republics in Russia: Karelians (Republic of Karelia), Komi (Komi Republic), Udmurts (Udmurt Republic), Mari (Mari El Republic), and Mordvins (Moksha and Erzya; Republic of Mordovia)." If we look at the rate of the titular peoples in the republics, we realize that the peoples don't really have them. The mere nominality of all the terms related to the republics (e.g. autonomous) within the Russian Federation is also rather patent. Cf. Rein Taagepera: The Finno-Ugric Republics and the Russian State. 130.232.8.252 (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Other national territories

Hi, what is the "other national territories" subsection defined as on this article? Areas with cultural autonomy? Historic areas of habitat before the existence of national states? Historic threshold? Because some items there don't make sense. For example the largest diaspora of Estonians outside of Estonia is in Finland. Then again finns have cultural autonomy in Estonia. None of those two are mentioned in the table. Latvia is mentioned as an "other national territory"" for Estonians but there is no significant minority of Estonians living in Latvia, nor is there cultural autonomy. The definition of the column should be clearly defined, because currently it is not clear, hence is not encyclopaedic. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

заселение уграми восточной европы

заселение европы уграми

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/03/30/1920051117

свежие данные генографов 2020г

R1a-z280+ , z458 .

цифровое моделирование заселения уграми европы с эпохи галоцена, сверху хронометр

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2020/03/30/1920051117.DCSupplemental/pnas.1920051117.sm03.gif

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/03/30/1920051117/F5.large.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Haplogroups_europe.png . в подтверждение заселения уграми европы служит, наличие гидронимов от р. Обь до Балтийского моря и Балканского полуострава

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Древнеевропейская_гидронимия#Примеры

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.133.8 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Griffins in Finno-Ugric mythology

I am currently studying the nomadic lifestyle of steppe-forest societies. I just want to know if there are griffins in Finno-Ugric mythology and of there is any relationship with Indo-European figures and concepts. I appreciate any answer. Ulstermarck (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not expert in this issue, but in Finnish mythology there are creatures like Aarnikotka which is a Griffin. In Kalevala there are "Vaakalintu" and/or "Kokko" which is a somekind of firebird and "Lievo" which is a smaller bird-kind creature which is used by Tietäjä. In Sami mythology there is giant bird called "Vuokko". Unfortunately article of these haven`t been created in English Wikipedia and in Finnish Wikipedia they are not too profound.Velivieras (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)