Talk:Ingria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which language did the Ingrians spoke? Was it related to Finnish? 1 August 2005 81.232.72.148

Most Izhorians (i.e., "Ingrians-proper") spoke Izhorian, which is a Finnic language, different from, but related to Finnish. The Ingrian Finns (mostly descendants of immigrants to Ingria from Finland) spoke (a dialect of) Finnish. Cheers, --3 Löwi 17:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 What is wrong with the map? 1.1 Possible solution 2 Ingria vs. Saint Petersburg guberniya 2.1 Alternate realities 3 Ingrian flag 4 Ru-Sib 5 Deleted picture? (flag of North Ingria, an area which attempted to get independent of Russia) 6 Revert war over an iw link (sib)

[edit] What is wrong with the map?

So, what exactly is wrong with it? So far it has been removed several times with comments about the map not being in english or that is should be in russian. So instead of reverting I want to ask how we can fix the map so that it is acceptable to everyone? -- Jniemenmaa 07:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, this is the map not of Ingria, but of the modern-day Leningrad Oblast, which includes large chunks of what was historically Russia proper (Tikhvin), Karelia (Kexholm), and Old Finland (Vyborg). Moreover, I see that the raions of the Leningrad Oblast are given outlandish names, presumably in Finnish. As I understand, the Ingrians never spoke Finnish. At least, these territories were never called by these names in historical documents. Therefore, it can not be qualified as "historical map of Ingria" as it pretends to be. In its current form, the map is pretty irrelevant here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This map does not contain the former Finnish territory in the Karelian Isthmus. The northern border is at Rajajoki (Sestra River).

The Ingrians spoke Finnish. The Izhorians spoke a Karelian dialect or language. Most of them however turned Lutheran and adopted Finnish or emigrated to Tver Karelia in today's Tver Oblast.

Up to the 1930s most of the peasants living outside Leningrad were Finnish-speaking. The present Russian-speaking population was imported in voluntary population transfers after WWII. (Don't ask what happened to the Ingrian Finns.) -- Petri Krohn 10:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"As I understand, the Ingrians never spoke Finnish." Wrongly understood. Ingrian Finns spoke Finnish until Russia destroyed their culture. --Jaakko Sivonen 14:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Having said that it's an interesting map, and lurking while its being reverted back & forth, I'm beginning to wonder where does the map come from? It's not explained, which makes the map a bit suspicous. On what basis was it made? Does anyone know? Maybe if that was sorted out we could all come to some kind of consensus. Also, why are there strange-shaped nameless regions on it? Why do they appear around St Petersburg, and on the edges of the "Ingria" yellow zone? Deuar 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the caption to "Ingrian Finnish parishes in the 1930s". The source is this map in the commons: Image:Map of Ingria.jpg. The description in commons says "Kartta Inkerinmaan pitäjistä Map of Ingria (with finnish names) modified from basemap by unknow author and before 1940:s"

I understand this to mean that the author fi:User:Inzulac created the image based on a map printed in Finland in the 1930s or 1940s (possibly on-line somewhere).

As to the content, the Finnish language Wikipedia has articles on each of the parishes listed on the map, giving a list of individual villages (most with Finnish names) in each of the parishes. Links to the articles are available in the main article fi:Inkeri. -- Petri Krohn 05:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This part was already under Russian control for a couple of hundred years in the 1930s, so I don't think a map in Finnish would be really appropriate... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was under Russian control, as was Old Finland, Estonia, and in fact, the Grand Duchy of Finland. It was however not russified until the forced population transfers in the 1930s and 1940s. -- Petri Krohn 08:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution

Perhaps the map could be revised to include both the Finnish and Russian names? Just a thought. —Khoikhoi 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? But why someone want to merge Swedish Ingria into this. Simply keep it main article about this time in history of Ingria. Kahkonen 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingria vs. Saint Petersburg guberniya

I see that the odious map was reuploaded. Now we have to find and add a Russian-language map of St Pete guberniya from 1900 to counterpoise the bias. I also recommend uploading the Russian-language map of Finland to History of Finland. I still fail to see the point of a map with ridiculously distorted Russian names, like "Hatsina" instead of "Gatchina" and "Markkova" instead of "Markovo". I believe they are quite meaningless in Finnish. Moreover, some evidence should be produced that these names were used in Saint Petersburg guberniya at the time, otherwise it's pure original research. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 05:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a new map, hopefully we can also produce a map for the Swedish times. The old map was possibly a copyvio, so I guess that is why it was removed. I think the russian language map at Grand Duchy of Finland is actually quite apropriate. Here are two maps with witch you can compare this map with: [2] [3] -- Jniemenmaa 06:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You can see some borders of the lutheran parishes here [4]. Those parishes were suppressed by Stalin in 1930s. The names were used among finnish-speaking, of course, because up to the 1930s most of the peasants living outside Saint Petersburg were finnish-speaking. --213.130.239.226 22:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The original source is the road map of Ingria, ISBN 951-96326-0-3. "The map is a documentation of place names of the county of Ingria in different languages. The county boundaries are defined according to the Treaty of Stolbovo in 1617. The finnish names correspond to those used by the Finns in Ingria." --213.130.239.226 22:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate realities

The Finnish Wikipedia has a large number of articles on both Ingria and the Leningrad Oblast, including separate articles on each of the raions and parishes of the entities. Even though these occupy the same geographic space, there seem to have a minimal relationship to each other. There are hardly any wikilinks between the two sets of articles, as if the two entities existed only in alternate realities.

A nearly similar situation exists in Kaliningrad and the Karelian Isthmus, where, after a total renewal of population, the new Soviet political entities replaced the old Finnish or German communities with little respect for the old borders. The difference with Ingria is that Finnish Ingria claims to exists, not only in the same place, but at the same time as the Russian entities.

The situation is quite plausible. Many large cities with one dominant population have existed in areas, where the rural population is of a different language, nationality or even religion. One example is Helsinki, an almost monolingual Finnish city. It is surrounded by a Swedish language countryside, that has existed for some 800 years. Only the expansion of suburbs is replacing the language. A similar situation existed in Ingria; the Finnish peasants and Lutheran parishes co-existed with Saint Petersburg and other smaller Russian cities and with the manor houses of Russian nobility.

It seems that very few Soviet or Russian sources are available on Finnish Ingria. This has been seen by some as an attempt in historical revisionism or negationism with and aim of covering the ethnic cleansing and possible genocide.

I was surprised by the disappearance of the image without it being tagged for removal. It struck me as a possible abuse of administrator privileges, in an misguided attempt at blanking information.

A word of advice to all you russophile would-be revisionists. This is a very sensitive subject. Please be very careful with your attempts at censorship. I do not believe you want to be associated with the "Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity". -- Petri Krohn 10:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Krohn, your case of nationalism seems to be far gone. The only person who is given to revisionism is yourself. It is you who attempt to revise generally accepted version of history with your cheap genocide talk, a sickening WP pest of which we've seen tons on Holodomor, Armenian Genocide, Anti-Romanian discrimination, and thousands other articles. You should be aware that those genocide ravers frequently end by being blocked from editing Wikipedia, sometimes permanently. So take care and please find another channel for spreading Russophobia if you have to. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingrian flag

The Ingrian flag thumb is marked with citation needed ATM. Here are some provisional sources: [5] (Swedish) [6] -- Himasaram 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ru-Sib

Some people are continually putting back the link to the ru-sib version. Note that that refers to "Izhorian land". Finnish contributors above keep repeating that Izhorian and Ingrian is not the same thing, and Siberian is a conlang, WP-OWNed by User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, there is a clear problem of OR here. --Pan Gerwazy 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Izhorian and Ingrian are two different things in language classification and in ethnic sense: the area is common to them both. The area's name is Ingria in English, and there are not two different geopgraphical areas, nor terms for two different geographical areas. It is quite possible, realy likely, that the (one) name in sib-lang (whatever it is) means the same area. Waimea 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SOME PEOPLE are continually vandalling the link to Siberian article named "Izhorian Land (Ingria, Ingermanlandia)". In Siberian these words are convertible terms.--Ottorahn 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Total BS. A language reflects a reality, so if for historical reasons, some argue that these two places are not the same, a consensus should be reached beforehand. Of course, if you define rules for yourself to follow, which is total cheating... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing here and can argue in Ru-Sib. But the Siberian article is dedicated to same thing. I don't understand permanent deleting our link. Is it a kind of amusement?--Ottorahn 18:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not, this parody of a language and its "wikipedia" are hardly amusing it all, I daresay... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you either have to behave according to the rules or to amuse yourself by deleting interwiki.--Ottorahn 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the ru-sib "wiki" violates WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and of course WP:NPOV, with his founder having to resort on ethnic slurs instead of a rational discussion, I would not like a nice project like en.wiki tarnished with that POV-pushing OR vehicle. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF! What is this Siberian language? Is this some kind of POV fork of the Russian language Wikipedia?

On the issue itself: This is the English language Wikipedia. It is not our job to judge the merits or the weaknesses of the RU-SIB Wikipedia. A group of people, however ignorant and biased thay may be, have managed to elevate their dialect to the status of a Wiki-language and to start to Wikipedia in their dialect/language. Now that they have created an article on Ingria, they have EVERY RIGHT to create a interwiki link here. If their article is crap, it is their business, not ours. (Everyone of course has the right to learn the language and contribute to the ru-sib wikiledia :-) -- Petri Krohn 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for support. I have no possibility to report on every vandalism. --Ottorahn 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Deleting interwiki links is a form of vandalism and should be reported as such. -- Petri Krohn 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no link to the Russian version at ru-sib. Surprise? --Pan Gerwazy 10:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And?! There is no link to Ru-Sib at ru. You abuse Ru-Sib at every moment: thats why we are not gratefully add links to ru. But we DON'T delete interwikies. As for Siberian language - I ignore your opinion. There are a lot of Ru-Sib users, a lot of articles and a lot of other texts. Good luck. --Ottorahn 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are free to add it. If it is reverted, it is vandalism and proof of bad faith. -- Petri Krohn 18:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous accusations of vandalism are a sign of black face and merit a block. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lokk at this [7]: there is a list of people who deserve ban. And I don't know how do they plan to be admin and so on. Fortunately, there is English Wiki, not Russian.--Ottorahn 19:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. Seems that there is an article in the user space: User:IJzeren Jan/Siberian language. The language may be artificial, but it does not change things a bit. -- Petri Krohn 21:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no Siberian dialect, indeed, the language is totally imaginary. We know that IJzeren Jan helped the owner of the "language" to create this Wiki. Yaroslav Zolotaryov has conceded that. I know a bit of Dutch (understatement) and I can tell you that the Dutch version ([8]) calls the Izhorians "Ingriërs" and the Ingrians "Ingermanlanders". I would not be surprised if that is what causes their confusion. After all, they made 4,000 articles in one day. You tell me to a) learn the language b) correct the OR and POV there. a) is rather easy, I know enough Russian to understand this "language". b) is impossible, because the guys WP:OWN the language. Have a look at [9]. Where is the difference between Izhorians and Ingrians? Note that that category page was in a bad state (those poor bots, you see) when I decided to delete the link. Otto Rahn has since edited it in a hurry. I cannot show a diff, and I do not know why. In any case, I remember well, that eg the category had both a Чухно-вугры and a Чухоно-вугры article. Editing the article would imply inventing another Siberian word, and that is Yaroslav Zolotaryov's job, he should post it on LiveJournal([10] and of course [11] which tells you something else about Otto Rahn) and ask for suggestions there, as this is basically how they produced the rest. Since it is not clear that the Siberian article and the English article are talking about the same thing (and I would not be surprised if this kind of article only exists to stir up trouble between Russians and Finns and get some more votes for their language), I do not think deleting the link is vandalism. --Pan Gerwazy 10:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"get more votes for their language". And it works, of course: [12]--Pan Gerwazy 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the most basic rule of English wikipedia, wikipedia:Verifiability, which takes precedence over all other policies, the links to any frivolous articles in ru-sib will be deleted. `'mikkanarxi 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "frivolous" article you write about.--Ottorahn 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know my viewpoint about Siberian. On the other hand, "frivolous" must of course mean links to articles like Hamlet or like this one, where there is a classification problem beacuse of the obvious OR there. Even if it were not against AGF, we cannot delete links to thousands of stubs or year articles because it would too time consuming. --Pan Gerwazy 00:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Years whatever, but to keep track of 200 real articles is no big deal. I already have about 6,000 in my watchlist. 10% more will make no difference. `'mikkanarxi 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Finnish contributors will have to believe me: I am not anti-Finnish, I just saw this one when I was delving into the way bots put ru-sib links into Russian wikipedia. I noticed that they missed out on this one, and that Otto Rahn "corrected" that here. I noticed what the problem was when looking at the Ru-sib Finnish-Ugrian, pardon me Chukhono-Ugrian (er, am I the only one who sees a provocative and false flag hint to Chukchen, the traditional victims of Russian ethnic jokes - see Irish joke - here?) cat page (as it was then, and not as it is now). The articles are not necessarily about the same thing - terminology problem. Mikka: I hope you do not get sleepless nights over this one - you in particular know that I believe in another strategy against this utter nonsense: attack is the best defense. By the way, compared to me, you are a veteran: any idea why I cannot look at a diff from here: [13] Are they being "naughty"? --Pan Gerwazy 11:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuting ru-sib link is a vandalism.

• 1) This is not a place to decide does siberian wiki have a right to exist or not. The decision about siberian project is already adopted.
• 2) I read siberian article - it's not so precise as english but it's quite correct and the term Ижорска земя is exactly the same as english Ingria, as Ottorahn has alredy mentioned. So no reason for deletion the interwiki --A4 08:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seems to me, that people who delete links are about to listen to rational arguments, But I hope...--Ottorahn 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I correct here Talk:Novgorod Republic#Vandalism!? It seems just the same.--A4 23:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

See meta:Proposals for closing projects/Close Siberian wikipedia (and vote) for the status of the Siberian wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted picture? (flag of North Ingria, an area which attempted to get independent of Russia)

What are reasons why the link to picture

was deleted from the article? Waimea 21:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not flag of Ingria, and it was moved to North Ingria. `'mikkanarxi 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war over an iw link (sib)

Between 6 November and 14 November (8 days), over 60 edits were made to this page, and about 60 of them simply were adding and removing that iw link. [14]

About 30 times, the iw link was added, and precisely as many times, about 30, it was removed. In average, more than thrice a day, both actions were made.

The most eager revert warriors have been:

In the removing party erasing the link (only three of them participated in the discussion with more than one comment):

• User:Ghirlandajo about six times, wrote one comment ([15]) about this issue in the talk page, and kept reverting
• User:Grafikm fr about five times,
• User:Irpen about five times, wrote nothing about the issue in the talk page, just kept reverting
• User:Mikkalai about four times, and
• User:Pan Gerwazy about six times.

In the party adding the link after its removal:

• User:A4 about eleven times, and
• User:Ottorahn about nine times. Of these two, both participated in discussion in talk page with several comments.

One starts to wonder why a link is so wanted to be erased. Waimea 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you bother to read this talk page? `'mikkanarxi 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and my opinion is that the presented reasons to remove the iw link are not legitimate. The existence of another-language wikipedia is not decided in this article. Waimea 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not existence. The issue is core principles of wikipedias, voilated in ru-sib, and for this reason linking to their articles is strongly objected. `'mikkanarxi 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Objected by u and your comrades? ;-) Dut our wiki & our language exist, whether you like it or not. And it will exist in spite of every votings. So for the time being I don't know what one can do with your vandalism< and I don't have enough time for this. But I'm glad that Waimea are asking such questions. There will be another users who will ask questions too. And I'll enjoy the way how you try to justify your infinite abuse.--Ottorahn 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Objected by a community consensus and Wikipedia policies, to begin with. Quite good reasons... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse, can you instruct me, who are the members of mentioned community & how can I read about mentioned "consensus", and what policy do you mean? --Ottorahn 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)