Talk:Kven/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is funny

In the Kvens of the past history ends already ca 1350, i.e 650 years before we were born. All after that is excluded and it is referred to this modern time site of the Kvens. But here we miss almost all the history between 1350 and 1850, just mentioned in a few lines with political and biased arguments, and no reference. Very important history and lots of documents are excluded from the Kven article. E. g. "There is little evidence that modern Kvens are direct descendants of Kvenland mentioned in a few ancient Norwegian and Icelandic sources." We have Kvenland mentioned and discussed thoroughly in a report from 1742-45. There is no or little reason to say anything else than that the Kvens of today are the ancestors of the Kvens of the past; or exclude that kind of discussion and leave that to geneticians and politicians. So it goes the article. No distinct culture, no ethnic groups. Please. --130.237.165.114 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The name "Kvens of the past" for the other article is not very good since it kind of robs the present-day Kvens from their past. I'd prefer the "Kvens of the past" to be called just "Kvenland" which is the name uniting all ancient sources (that end around 1250 CE) and which is the common headline for the subject in other publications. The known history of the Kvens in the north, starting in the 16th century, should be handled in this article here. Any comments from Suedois that originated the split and article naming convention? --Drieakko 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As "Kven" was most probably an old dialectal Norwegian name for all Finns, Kvens in the north are most likely as much descendants of the ancient Kvens as other Finns. Sources from the 9th to 13th century seem to place Kvens to southern Finland, sources from the 16th to 18th century to Lappland, and today the usage of the word has retreated to the northernmost Norway. --Drieakko 05:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The key point is that Kvens have not been known as a seperate ethnic group from the age of Kvenland until recent time. Also, I believe the history of the Kvens before they became a minority in Northern Norway should be limited in this article (that is anything before the first large immigration). I don't disagree that Kvens are most likely descendants of the ancient Kvens, but I have not found a way to write this without confusing readers who know nothing about Kvenland or even Finland. If someone do, please improve the article.Labongo 13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest one of the following names: "Kvens (ancient)", "Kvens (prehistoric)", "Kvens (protohistoric)" or "Kvens (early medieval)". Or Kvenland, aa Drieakko suggests. Kvens of the past is arguably a very poor headline.130.234.5.137 12:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Labongo has presented great additional information

Labongo has added the reference Schnitler to the reference list. The reference list is only for the text which refers to the sources. One should not add references if you do not use them in the text. Please remove that Schnitler if you do not discuss him in the article. The article will not improve with an immense list of references. That is pure fake. Please move the whole "Kvens of the past " or rename it: "The modern mythology of the Kvens", written by Drieakko/Labongo. It can be a bestseller if you write it in a form og a book. --84.216.53.123 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To the user Drieakko:

There is no reliable source or known historian to support your view there. Which, Who ? You must check the expert views - and there are numerous - which point out that the term "Caijaners" (the people of Kajaani or the "Cajanians") refers to the people of Kainuu of course, in other words the Kvens. Even in the present day the capital of Kainuu is called Kajaani.

Well, I do not support any view. I just present facts from a visitor from the region who wrote a report 1742. That is not a theory which one can reject or accept.--130.237.165.114 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And 130.237.165.114 still isn't Drieakko :) The article about Kvenland handles the few existing sources in detail, presents probable conclusions and then lists a variety of very different views by several professors, all contradicting each other in a major way. Everyone is free to pick their favourite Kvenland. --Drieakko 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drieakko, please, you are biased by an ethno-political perspective and you do not have the competence to present a new perspective. Wikipedia editors should only refer to existing perspectives and should not be allowed to present new perspectives and that in form of mythology claimed to be reliable intepretations of facts. Please, tell the readers that you are an amateur in the field.--84.216.53.123 18:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are three ways of writing the Kvenland article:

• Pick one theory about Kvenland and make the article based on it
• Present alternative theories about Kvenland in detail
• Present original sources directly and summarize theories about Kvenland

The last one is in my opinion the best choice in this case, because:

• Media is full of fictional claims about Kvenland
• Popular theories about Kvenland are very conflicting and nationalistic
• Theories about Kvenland are mainly found in old Finnish books
• English presentation of original sources is not available in the public domain
• All known Kvenland sources are available in the Internet for anyone to read
• Original sources are few and very short

As for the comment about me being biased by an "ethno-political perspective", I could not possibly care less about things like that. --Drieakko 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here I agree: Drieakko could not care less for his biased approach. True.

Drieakko, I agree once more. The world is full of popular theories of Kvenland, and your article is truly in that cateogory. We are coming closer a mutual agreement.

But wrong again: Alla known sources are not available, e.g Schnitlers report. But you have rejected that source, because you have not heard or read that. So you have presented all original sources. Yeaah. --84.216.54.103 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Schnitler's report from 1745 CE belongs to the time and place of Kven migrations (starting from 1720) to Norway from Tornio Valley. It appears as an isolated description 500 years later than previous known Kvenland references. Previous references are from 890 CE (Ottar), possibly 1075 CE (terra feminarum) and Icelandic sagas written down in the early 13th century, describing events in the 7th to 9th centuries. Political and ethnographical situation in Fennoscandia had changed a lot by 1745 CE and can not be directly compared to the late Iron Age. Kvenland article is scoped also as Kvens of the past and Schniters's report falls out of that category. But I think that it could be somehow added to the Kvenland article. Do you know any version of the report in the public domain? --Drieakko 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, write an article on the Kvens in the following way. 1 Time span 800 BC 800 Ad. 2. All the rest after that. However, as there are no references of Kvens before 800 AD then we do not need to write their history at all. All history after 800 AD is completely imbued with theories. So, Drieakko. I recommend. Delete all imbued articles about the Kvens after 800 AD. --130.237.165.114 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Schitnler report is refered to in the article. It is an example of Kvens being believed to be the same ethnic group as Samis. Labongo 06:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I should not be credited as a major contributor to the Kvens of the past article. The well writen and well referenced article is mostly due to Drieakko.Labongo 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Kvens were called by different names in different languages

To the user Drieakko (one of his user names) & everyone else:

As we all know, Kvens were called by different names in different languages, of course. In Norwegian and Icelandic - whose ancestors also were largely from Norway (although the founders of Iceland were also from Ireland, Scotland, and - besides Norway - also from some other areas of Scandinavia) - the Kvens were called Kvener, or Kvæn etc.

Famously, also for instance the following other spellings and names for the Kven people appear in historic writings in different parts of the world and during different periods: Cwen, Quen, Qven, kveeni, kainulainen, Kajaner (Kajaani is Kajana in Swedish) and Caijaner (Julku / Kvenland - Kainuunmaa, pages 171, 187, etc. / 1986), Sithon (Julku / Kvenland - Kainuunmaa, pages 51, 52 / 1986) ... and so on.

It is of course wrong and unfounded for you to claim that as the Finnish people call the Swedes by the Finnish language term ruotsalaiset, they - based on the entirely different name and/or spelling - are not talking about the same group of people. Are you indeed attempting to claim that only the Swedish term Svensk is fit to be used in reference to the Swedish people, and only "Sverige" in reference to the country of Sweden ?

Is it therefore correct to claim that, according to you - based on your theory and reasoning -, all other names used of the Swedish people simply cannot mean the Swedish people, not even the english language term Swedes ? Are we reading you correct here ? Is this really your reasoning and view ? Hello, knock knock !!

Whereas we have continuously kept offering quotes and statements from the utmost experts as references for these questions, you continue refusing to offer any counter claims from the same caliber experts, or anyone really. And everyone certainly knows Why ! Because you simply are unable to offer any such references. There truly aren't any such references, where any reliable historian would site with you on this issue (and in many other issues as well) ! It really is as simple as that.

Thus, you are being a nuisance for the Wikipedia community ! You can only refer to your own writings and opinions, the opinions of a student, who happens to be on an extremely wrong track. Your pointless - and naturally unreferenced - efforts mount to vandalism, nothing more, nothing less !

The above topic has already been discussed in this forum in the past. You were there - using another user name, and you lost, remember ! You truly are very hard headed.

Here is yet another statement for you. The very most respected expert on this topic, the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku from the University of Oulu in Finland states is his 1986 book KVENLAND / KAINUUNMAA, page 187, the following (exact quote / the original text was also written in English):

"Once King Karl IX had strengthened his hold on the crown of Sweden he appended to it the title "King of the Kainulaiset", apparently using it for the first time on 16.3.1607.

This title was later dropped, but Kainuu, or Ostrobothnia, occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come. Thus when Queen Christina appointed Count Pehr Brahe as Governor-General, he became officially Governor-General of Finland, Åland and Ostrobothnia.

This can only be interpreted, of course, as implying that the incorporation of Ostrobothnia into rest of the country by international agreement was still a recent event and remained fresh in people's memories."

The Kajaani/Caijaner - Kvenland connection is not recent news, by all means. Numerous scientists - from many countries - have made the connection. In the same book, KVENLAND / KAINUUNMAA, page 171, the Emeritus Professor Julku writes also for instance the following, in reference to Kajaani (compare, the people of Kajaani, in Swedish: "Caijaners):

"The most mature contribution to the Kainuu discussion to emerge at this stage was the short work published by Gabriel Lagus in 1853 on the baronies of Kajaani and Oulu. Lagus clearly demonstrated a familiarity with all the sources employed up to that time in research into the Kainuu question and the works of all the historians who had touched on the subject, and was of the opinion that the onomastic forms Qvenland, Qvener, Kainuu, kainulainen and Kajaani were of a common origin. ...

... Russian sources demonstrated an acquaintance with the name Kajana ... Ancient Kainuu was in effect entirely coincident with Norrbotten as mentioned in later sources.

As if the vast amount of evidence were not enough to any beginning researcher, just consider the following for the beginners: Anyone viewing historic maps knows that the areas of "Bothnia" covered territories of both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia, and the name Kainuu - in varying forms of spelling - can also be found from the both sides of the Gulf of Bothnia.

Yet, once in a while we still come across some Drieakko, who is in a serious denial, and - of course - without anyone, no historian or any scientist at all, to back him up. Who ? - - What on earth 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this long post is relevant for the topic of the article (the Kven minitory group in Norway). The history of Kvens before they moved to Northern Norway should be discussed elsewere. Labongo 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This above posting is of outmost relevance for the debate, not Labongo's. Well written, and in most parts, I am of the same opinion that he/she is. Rethorics is the way Labongo is using as a way to debate, after that he revealed himself not even read the most common articles of Kven issues. Please, present fact, not ethno-political theories only. Facts, pure facts and then try to impose your ethno-political ideas on facts. Wikipedia is not for rethorics (it has its own entry), it aims to present more or less objective presentations of history. Objective is to present all facts and then give an interpretation of the facts.--84.216.52.203 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And still Drieakko is using his one and only username. Kainuu as Kvenland is one of the many theories about Kvenland. Kindly write article about Origin of the name Kainuu to handle that. Article about Kvenland is about Kvenland, not about Kainuu. Kainuu, Terra Feminarum and Sitones are all mentioned as possible references to it. Professor Matti Klinge would have plenty of other "Kvenlands" here and there to add, but I have not referenced those yet. The article is well linked to Kainuu, if readers are willing to read more about that theory. --Drieakko 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are synonyms, same thing in different languages - Kainuu/Kainuunmaa and Kvenland, according to the outmost experts. Should we therefore - based on your strategy - have separate articles for instance for Sweden, Sverige, Ruotsi, etc, in the English Wikipedia (all mean the same thing). Let the experts decide whether or not Sweden and Sverige mean the same thing. We here must not try to make that conclusion, especially not without any valid and appropriate sources !

The king was crowned 1607 CE. Construction of the Kajaani castle close to Russian border started 1604 CE. Adding "caijaners...konung" to his title during 1607-1611 CE was a provocation to Russians, nothing more. His son dropped the title. --Drieakko 17:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You, user Drieakko, had set the above comment of yours inside the original comment. Please do not resort to that. That adds to possible confusion. Your comment was therefore moved right above this comment, to follow the chain of replies, in timely order.

Please also notice, that the original comment makes the same point which you do, without your reasoning included, however. Your "provocation" view point - to a degree - touches a token of truth, nevertheless. Naturally, the Swedish King was out to prove something, and we cannot blame him for doing that. Which king wouldn't have done that, or would not do it even in the modern times.

One of the important points the comment ought to make has to do with exactly that realization. Neither the Russians nor the Swedes had been able to claim - up till then - these particular historic Kvenland areas as areas which they were in charge of, to any important degree.

Thus - importantly -, the original comment goes on to state also the following about the title of "the King of the Kvens" in quetion, from the early 17th century (a direct quote from the text of the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku):

"This title was later dropped, but Kainuu, or Ostrobothnia, occupied a separate position from the rest of Finland for a long time to come. Thus when Queen Christina appointed Count Pehr Brahe as Governor-General, he became officially Governor-General of Finland, Åland and Ostrobothnia.

This can only be interpreted, of course, as implying that the incorporation of Ostrobothnia into rest of the country by international agreement was still a recent event and remained fresh in people's memories."

What on earth 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The area in question was officially incorporated to the Kingdom of Sweden by the Treaty of Tyavzino with Russians in 1595 CE. So naturally it was a recent event in the early 17th century. However, much of the area had been under de facto Swedish rule for more than 200 years. But I fail to see the point here. --Drieakko 15:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Labongo, do not resort to removing anyone's comments from here !

The comments which you attempted to remove today are much more to the point than yours. If any comments ought to be removed from here, they are yours.

These comments - which you are attempting to remove - are here to show what the historians have proven your radical and unpresidented theory wrong. The past and the new Kvens represent the same people. Give it up !

Nobodys comments should be removed. The comment which I unfortunantely replaced with a "forward message" was a posted on two Talk pages, with a discussion alredy started in the second Talk page. I hope in the future we can keep the noise to signal ratio low, and avoid posting off-topic comments on multiple talk pages. Labongo 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User Labongo: Do not remove comments from here. Instead, answer to them !

Please, do not worry where anyone writes, user Labongo, a.k.a. Fred Chessplayer. Instead of removing comments from here on, make a counter comment of your own, if you wish. You have no credentials or power to say what is relevant or not, even less to take out anyone's comments from the talk pages.

A tip to you: The above info in fact is extremely relevant, even crucially relevant. This conversation belongs here. The Kvens of the past column needs to be ended. However, as long as that article exists, the comments can be doubled there as well. That won't hurt. You yourself appear to be one of the major causes for any confusion regarding this that may exist. Please stop !

What on earth 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What on earth, it's pretty clear you are a sockpuppet that's been here many times before with the intent of trolling. --Leifern 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another miscomprehension

"The settlement of today's Finland after - and already during - the last ice age largely happened via the Norwegian Atlantic coastal areas and from around the ice masses, as those coastal areas became free of the ice first. This is what today is widely accepted, not your view. If there is a historian that you are aware of, who disagrees, please provide the exact source information, including the quote(s) and the matching pages ?"

In fact, everyone disagrees. Northernmost Fennoscandia may have been inhabitated by the way described by Art Dominique/Steve Wondering, but most of Finland gained its population from the southeast and south. This is what is widely accepted. It would be silly to provide "exact source information", as any book dealing with Finnish prehistory will tell you this. For starters, check out the book Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen valossa (publ. 1999), especially the papers written by Milton Nunez and Christian Carpelan.

The idea that the Stone Age antiquities in Northernmost Fennoscandia could or should be associated with the Kvens is patently absurd, and not endorsed by any archaeologist I am aware of.217.112.242.181 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Only recently you were still disputing and questioning the entire northern settlement route, which all historians widely today approve of. You tried telling us that nothing had changed in this respect since the "1960s". We are glad to see that you have continued your studies. - - - - what on earth 12:5, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I have never questioned the northern settlement route, of which I have always been aware. As I have explained million times, "since the 1960's" argument was related to the Late Iron Age archaeology. Once again, Steve/Art lies and distorts grotesquely the arguments other commentors.217.112.242.181 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

User Drieakko - with multiple names - removes comments that criticize him

To the user Drieakko: That "vulgar language" part - women's private part - was an exact quote used by the accused, and copied and pasted here from a past comment.

You have been accused to be that very person, remember. That part of the text was now removed - nevertheless -, to please you. So now, allow the comment to be posted, please !

Furthermore, the first comment (of the two) is not entirely the same at all as the one in the related discussion. Do not remove it, or any other comments !

--> the comments in question have been re-entered below !

What on earth 11:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What on earth/ Steve Wondering/ Art Dominique, please stop posting duplicate posts on this talk page and on Talk:Kvens of the past. Also, stop the personal attacks and accusations that the editors reverting, removing and challenging your trollish posts are the same person. Labongo 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your claims about my other accounts, please make a request to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser if you suspect any, Otherwise kindly stop that. --Drieakko 12:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Or do it in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kven-users. Labongo 12:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your duplicate posts on several discussion forums, additional copies of your posts will be removed. --Drieakko 12:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To user 217.112.242.181, an admitted vandal

The below comment is not a dublicate of any other comment anywhere else (stop vandalism / stop removing this text !). This an answer to the comment just made by the user 217.112.242.181 whose vandal tactics were just proven in two comments posted on the discussion page at the Kvens of the past):

Yes, yes, check such and such book. We've heard that before, haven't we. I happen to be the one, who first introduced here the work you mention above, and you seem to agree, by stating:

"Northernmost Fennoscandia may have been inhabitated by the way described by Art Dominique/Steve Wondering".

Do not forget what we are discussing here. It's the Kvens, silly ! They indeed are the ones who inhabited the "Northernmost Fennoscandia". So we salute you. Thank you for that remark !

Why don't you now finally begin giving us the exact quotes (+ page numbers) - as has been requested continuously -, when you attempt to present any findings of science (that is what we are doing).

Remember, earlier you were stating that nothing has changed in this respect since the 1960s. Remember, how you were then proven wrong. The entire matter - what comes to the northern settlement routes - indeed has been re-thought since the 1960s, and the subject is now taught in schools entirely differently than in 1960s.

Only three months ago you approved the Diki Wiki's Kven text (just like Mr. Mikkalai and others as well). You did state, however, that you were still - perhaps - not fully satisfied.

Now you're contradicting yourself in this matter as well. You suddenly now want the Kven text written by Driakko. Strange. When you were accused of being him, you both mysteriously appeared to deny it at the same time !

what on earth 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a post by Drieakko using his IP address only. --82.181.85.226 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is Drieakko's confirmation that he made that post. --Drieakko 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is an comment to posts in Talk:Kvens of the past, why are you posting it here? Also, your requests for referencecs have been answered hundreds of times. If you are dissatisfied with anything in either this or the Kven of the pasts article I suggest you make a statement in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kven-users. Until that case have been setled I suggest you stop posting.Labongo 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Because all Kven talks must be done here. There must be only one united article about the modern-day Kvens and the past Kvens. Kvenland, etc., can be separate articles. That is why. Without proper, detailed sources, the Kven article by Digi Wiki must not to be tampered with, as Mr. Mikkalai demanded after a concensus was reached. You were there to admit as Fred the Chessplayer, remember.

Give a quote of your detailed source information provided, which includes the page information and exact quote(s) from known historian(s). We are certain you have not provided any such a thing. You are simply a nuisnce to Wikipedia, nothing more. - - what on earth 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)- -

Who is this mysterious "we"? --Drieakko 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Steve Wondering

I waste my time to answer this, only to prove how absurd the latest accusations of Steve Wondering/Art Dominique are.

This an answer to the comment just made by the user 217.112.242.181 whose vandal tactics were just proven in two comments posted on the discussion page at the Kvens of the past):

Art Dominique, a well-known puppetmaster, accuses others of "vandal tactics"?

Remember, earlier you were stating that nothing has changed in this respect since the 1960s. Remember, how you were then proven wrong. The entire matter - what comes to the northern settlement routes - indeed has been re-thought since the 1960s, and the subject is now taught in schools entirely differently than in 1960s.

Remember, I never stated such a thing. Never. Remember, as I explained very clearly for several times, my "since the 1960's" statements were related to the Late Iron Age archaeology only, and were essentially correct. Please compare the distribution maps of Late Iron Age cemeteries in Kivikoski's Suomen esihistoria (1961) and Torsren Edgren's Den förhistoriska tiden in Finlands histori 1 (1994).

Remember, you have never proved me wrong - quite on the contrary. Remember - your credibility suffers immensely for your constant lying (a very un-Finnish habit, so shame on you!) and attempts to distort the sayings of other people.

The Kvens are, of course, inhabitants of Northern Fennoscandia, but there is absolutely no proof of them being there already in the Stone Age. Attempts to link Stone age sites with the Kvens are just a banal example of national-chauvinistic wishful thinking.

Only three months ago you approved the Diki Wiki's Kven text (just like Mr. Mikkalai and others as well). You did state, however, that you were still - perhaps - not fully satisfied.

I was not fully satisfied, and that´s why I now support Drieakko's text, which is so much better.

Now you're contradicting yourself in this matter as well. You suddenly now want the Kven text written by Driakko. Strange. When you were accused of being him, you both mysteriously appeared to deny it at the same time !

No ones cares what you are imagining, so save your breath.217.112.242.181 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding spelling of "Sitoni / Sithoni, etc.

To the user 217.112.242.181:

Another Professor Emeritus (other than Julku), Unto Salo, spells the word in question "Sithoni".

Perhaps you'll understand this: Älkäämme takertuko pikkuseikkoihin, matkallamme suuriin päämääriin ! - - what on earth 12:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kindly continue this discussion in Talk:Sitones. --Drieakko 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)