Talk:Sámi peoples

Sources does not support forced sterilization

I've been trying to research forced sterilizations of the Sami and have been looking for sources supporting this claim. In the section "genetic studies" it claims that forced sterilizations of Sami is an example of discrimination against them, and cites three news articles about the Swedish forced sterilization program to support it. These articles does not mention Sami people, rather it mentions racial hygiene, which I do not believe is sufficient for a claim that ethnic minorities were targeted by the program. It might be true that the program disproportionally targeted Sami but this claim needs to be supported, especially since every direct source I have found by a government body or independent group, including investigations by the Swedish state, have found that Sami women were not disproportionally sterilized by the program. https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/68b217b7f8e746a799536f3ad851c05e/steriliseringsfragan-i-sverige-1935---1975/ 85.224.75.191 (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the sources supposedly backing that content up and none of them mentioned the Sámi, so it appears to be a case of WP:SYNTH and I have removed it for now. If reliable sources supporting such content in regards to the Sámi can be found, it can be restored. TylerBurden (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Notable people of Sámi descent: Samuel Balto (who is “Nansen”?)

Please link to Fridtjof Nansen in the comments on Samuel Balto in the “Notable people of Sámi descent” section. As a non-Scandinavian, I had no idea who that was, so context/deep linking would have been nice. --78.23.192.69 (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Added a link. TylerBurden (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Head-scratching sentence

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

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)

Another head-scratching sentence

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

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

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)

Peoples or People?

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)

@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)