Talk:Sámi people

Requested move 1 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 16:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sámi people → Sami peopleSami people – No opinion, technical request. I see a sluggish revert war in various Sámi-titles without move discussions, so I want to settle this once and for all. I suppose the decision applies to All pages with titles containing Sami and related to these Finnic people, for consistency, so I spammed two dozen talkpages with link here. --Altenmann >talk 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Refs in the etymology section differ in spelling. --Altenmann >talk 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards refs in the etymology section, they reflect the changed use of the diacritic over time with the 2008 source using Sami and the 2014 one using Sámi. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to Ngram, slight preference for "Sami" over "Sámi", but probably a (small?) percentage of results for "Sami" include the given name. If we include "people" then there is a preference for "Sámi people" in the last few years. Mellk (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    fi:Sami is actually a fairly common Finnish name. For me, a Google Books search for English books published after 2000 shows a mix of (incorrectly categorized?) Finnish children's books and books written by people with a given name Sami (or books about someone called Sami). Less than half of the results are about the Sámi people, so the first Ngram above is likely to be too inaccurate to be considered as evidence. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was assuming a certain percentage of the results for "Sami" was about something else, but I did not have time to check by how much and so I mentioned this in case someone else who was interested could get a figure. But yes, on the surface, it is not very useful. Mellk (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The last wide-ranging discussion of this was at Talk:Sámi Assembly of 1917#Requested move 15 June 2020 (and more recently there's Talk:Sámi languages#Requested move 23 January 2025 reverting an undiscussed move from Sámi to Sami). While Sami, Saami, and Same are common in older texts, Sámi is the more common spelling in contemporary scholarly work. Sámi is also the more common (though not universal) spelling used in English by Sámi institutions (the Saami Council being a notable exception). The Ngram of Sami/Sámi alone is skewed by uses of "Sami" unconnected to the people. Searches like Sami history/Sámi history, Sami art/Sámi art, Sami activists/Sámi activists, and Sami languages/Sámi languages better reflect the more common usage. In line with the 2020 discussion at Sámi Assembly of 1917, it seems clear to me that Sámi should be default spelling per MOS:COMMONNAME and MOS:DIACRITICS, while recognizing that there are instances, particularly for institutions, where an unaccented or other spelling may be more proper. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I am not sure if it is worth collecting a sample for "Sami" and seeing what percentage of results refer to something else, but considering it has been stable at "Sámi" for a long time, probably not worth changing it unless there is clear evidence of "Sami" being preferred. Mellk (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through the first 1000 results of searching for Sami on en.wiki and more than half seemed to be for Finnish, Arabic, and South Asian personal or family names, along with a few location names.—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Striking myself, I'm going to try a more methodical look rather than just going on my impression... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Going through the results at All pages with titles containing Sami: 22.5% are articles, redirects, and disambigs related to Sámi people; 69.5% are personal or family names; 4% are non-Sámi place names; the rest are other non-Sámi uses. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME as confirmed by prior RMs and Ngrams shared above. Another look at Ngram of the Sami */Sámi * (wildcard) result hints at further teasing apart the people from individuals named Sami. See also Sami */Sámi */Saami *. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. There seems to be a preference for "Sámi" in general and there is no good reason to move. Mellk (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Indigenous"

The term "indigenous" has no agreed upon meaning, but connotes to "having been there previouslyto (the Norweigians, Swedes)" so I believe its use in this context is, as at best, not the whole truth. My gripe is not that the Sámi are described as indigenous, but that other Scandinaviens aren't, even though they arrived to the penninsula at roughly the same time frame. I agree that they are indigenous to northern Scandinavia, and have a historic range all the way to Mälardalen, but exclusivly giving them the title of indigenous is, I think, not entirely correct. So reword it please.

(I understand that for official designation they are regarded as indigenous because of their historic oppression) (I am also advocating for the rewording of the articles for the other Scandinavian peoples') 31.208.186.110 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that struck me too. It's more a matter of discrimination against the north by those from the south. ~2025-30940-27 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at photos and pictures of the Sami peoples from less than 200 years ago, and the Sami people of today, can we safely say that biologically pure Sami people (ie of identical genetic stock to the Samis from say 800 years ago) no longer exist? That is to say all the Sami peoples today are hybrids of the original Sami people and Europeans, to the extent that these individuals are all less than 50% Sami, and many cases much less than 50% Sami, biologically. Could we still call them Sami? We have the same problem classifying many of today's people, for example Barack Obama is always called a Black man, when biologically he is as much a White man as a Black man. The same goes for classifying Jews as a biological race. Many so called native Americans and native New Zealanders do not look like the true natives, as they are hybrids. As we now know all non-sub-Saharan humans contain 1-5% Neanderthal genes, and people with 5% Neanderthal genes cannot register themselves as Neanderthals. ~2025-36222-97 (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

offensive is not a synonym for derogatory

@TylerBurden

Offensive is not a synonym for derogatory, because people can be offended by many things in many ways and some slights may be minor, but offense is taken. What is being made clear here is that the term 'Lapp' is a term used to denigrate / be derogatory and so considered offensive by its usage.

Though, that said, some Sami find the term offensive in that the language and culture of the people was heavily suppressed - under the spread of Christianity and trying to create homologous nation-states during the 19th and early 20th centuries - and were pressurized into using the term 'Lapp', in school say, and it is this denial of the mother tongue was offensive, rather than the exonym itself.

In the article, under 'Etymology', the text in places emphasis on the former being the main issue, but the issue of cultural & lingual suppression as comes up later on, but there is less evidence within the entry there to back this up as being the reason for the offense taken against 'Lapp'. [In my view, this has a stronger case from what I have garnered elsewhere, but I am unable to quote it as I have not got any sources to cite.] 92.41.32.225 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well consider going into such nuance in the article body if you can find some sources, I don't think it's the level detail needed in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden
That nuance is in the article for the former and this should be clearer in the intro - being offensive in itself is too vague.
92.41.32.225 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a racial slur

The Fact that a Racial slur was used in this article is insane

Imagine if in the african American article there was this

Historically, the African americans have been known in English as "N***** ~2025-38041-89 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind identifying where exactly the problem is and what you would like to be done about it? Apraxilalia (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C3%A1mi_people