Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Ugrians

Untitled

Even though this is just a stub, the content is mostly beside the point. The topic of the article, "Ugrians", is defined with one sentence; the rest is mostly general information on Finno-Ugric peoples and does not belong in this article. --AAikio 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the stuff on Finno-Ugrians, and put a link to that article in the "See also" section. --Zundark (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarians are not Ugrians

Re. recent edits, some sources claim this because of the supposed connection between the languages. But Yugria was the country east of Perm, and included the Ket, Komi, Nenet, Selkup and Udmurt.

After the Russian conquest of Yugria, Czar Ivan III used the title "King of the Ugrians" in correspondence with the king of Hungary. That wasn't a territorial claim. — kwami (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What my edits provided was the contemporary terminology that is used to label various historic and contemporary peoples. I have provided sources for this terminology at Talk:Finnic peoples#Western Finns, and included some of them here in the article (see revision before the revert). You should also read the sources in the version to which you reverted. You will find that none of them agree with your personal terminology.
Here's what Sinor 1990, The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, p.253, says in a chapter named Ob-Ugrians (underlining mine, and some accents omitted):

The Medieval Islamic geographers make mention of the Wisu and Yura as peoples who lived beyond the Volga Bulghars in the far north and with whom the latter traded for furs. [...] The Yura are the Yugra (Ugra, Iugra of the Rus' chronicles), the Ob-Ugrians, the earliest stages of whose history we have already reviewed. At present they consist of two peoples, the Mansi-Vogul and the Khanty-Ostiak.

So, it seems you are conflating this historic terminology (Yugra) with the present-day terminology, in which the "Ugrian peoples" includes both the Ob-Ugrians and the Hungarians (according to sources that I provided). Note also that the reverted version referred to "linguistic ancestors", which was the term which the reliable source "The Oxford Guide to the Uralic Languages" uses, so your argument about ethnicities is irrelevant. And regardless what you imply in the revert summary, I never claimed that "Ugrian peoples" would constitute a very meaningful ethnic unit in contemporary world. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami:: Steven Danver's Encyclopedia Native Peoples of the World (2015) contains your above statements, so I assume you are using it as a source here. The policy WP:TERTIARY urges some caution in using tertiary sources like this. The encyclopedia seems to be mostly good quality, but this specific article titled Samoyedic is very dubious (available at archive.org, pp. 235 and 236). Let me quote the first two paragraphs of the article:

The name Samoyedic is a Russian term meaning “self-eater,” a reference to the alleged practice of cannibalism as described in twelfth-century Russian chronicles. It is a simplification of the ethnic composition of western Siberia, which is inhabited by a diverse set of Ob-Ugrian peoples. Their territory stretches from the northern course of the Dvina River in northern Russia to the Ob River in western Siberia and the Sayan Mountains in the southwestern part of the Altay range.
In the southwest, the Ugrians were influenced significantly by the Turks, and they are related ethnically and linguistically to the Finns and Hungarians. Living next to Russians and Turks, the Ugrians gradually assimilated into those cultures, a fact that is reflected in many loan words from Russian and Turkic, along with southwestern Siberian dialects. The most prominent ethnic groups among the Ugrians are the Ket, Komi, Nenet, Selkup, and Votiak.

What is presented here is a full-blown confusion between Samoyeds (e.g. Ket, Nenets, Selkup), Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi) and other northern Finno-Ugric peoples (Komi and Votiak a.k.a. Udmurt). The article does cite some good-quality sources which do not share this terminological confusion, but instead make a clear distinction between these peoples. I think you should self-revert per WP:BURDEN if you don't have a better source. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danver was the source of my statement above, but I'd never heard of him before this discussion.
He seems to be conflating two uses of 'Ugric', the original one (now obsolete) of those non-Turko-Mongolic peoples east of Perm, and a later one of those Finns who were linguistically closest to the Hungarians (or at least supposedly so), the Hanti and Mansi. In neither era were the Hungarians 'Finns'. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what statements like Hungarians were not 'Finns' mean, as you have some personal interpretation of the word Finn, and you would also need to specify in which sense you use the word 'were'. Not that it matters much, Finns are not relevant here, and for all I care, we can drop the mention of the 'Ugrian Finns' per WP:DUE as antiquated and rare terminology. Especially at this stage, when we don't discuss other historic terminology. But if we decide to keep it, we need to be faithful to the source, which says that "Ugrian Finns include the Voguls [...], the Ostyaks [...] and the Magyars of Hungary".
With regards to Ugrians, all we need to do is provide sources (per WP:VERIFIABILITY) which indicate how the term is used in scholarly texts, and not to impose our personal preferences. The sources provide answers to questions about which peoples are included, in which sense (ethnic or linguistic), and on which eras the term is typically used. We don't need to engage in WP:OR of our own. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Let's not do that then. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2024

Ugrians → Ob-Ugrians – "Ugrians" is an ambiguous term. It is often understood to include both Hungarians and the Ob-Ugrians (Khanty and Mansi), or to refer to a some theorized proto-Ugric community. For examples, see this book, this Britannica entry, and this study. However, we don't really need an article about Ugrians in the broad sense, since it is just an umbrella term with not much non-linguistic content, and the linguistic content is naturally covered by Ugric languages.

Occasionally, "Ugrian" is used synonymously with "Ob-Ugrian". See Marjorie Mandelstam Balzer's book. Article about Ob-Ugrians would be useful since they are very closely related, but a better title for that article would be Ob-Ugrians per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Ugrians on the other hand should be made into a disambiguation page which would include links to Ugric languages and to Ob-Ugrians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose Ob-Ugric is a linguistic construct, not an ethnic one. There's no reason to have a combined article on the Khanty and Mansi specifically, esp. since we have articles on both. It's the historical Ugrian Finns, whatever the specific conception of them may be in any particular source, that is of encyclopedic interest. Granted, this article barely mentions them, but that's an argument for expanding the article. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on your idea about "Ugrian Finns", and perhaps show some sources about them? The only source which currently mentions the Ugrian Finns is the late-19th century Britannica, which defines the "race of Finns" linguistically (and includes Hungarians as Ugrian Finns). It's not something we can use to expand the article.
    The Ob-Ugrians are not only linguistically, but also ethnically related. Their mythologies are largely the same, and some traces of a common moiety system remain. Most important consideration for WP is that there are a lot of sources on "Ob-Ugrian peoples": Google Scholar search. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but ethnically I doubt that they're closer than some other of the Ugrians were.
    The reason the Hungarians were included in that old EB article, and that they're no longer counted among the 'Finns', is a linguistic construct, namely the Ugric branch of Finno-Ugric. But that classification is largely obsolete. Anyway, people's ethnicity / ethnic identity doesn't normally change whenever linguists posit a new classification of their languages.
    If the Xanty and Mansi share enough to make a good WP article, fine, but I wouldn't want to exclude other historical Ugrians, which a move to 'Ob-Ugrians' would imply.
    The name 'Ob-Ugrian' is a purported linguist clade, not an ethnicity. It means 'all Ugrian languages apart from Hungarian.' Beside the fact that recent linguistic classifications don't include Hungarian in a Ugric branch, ethnically the Hungarians never were Ugrian. So ethnically 'non-Hungarian Ugrians' are simply Ugrians.
    I'd summarize things the opposite way you did. You say that there's little non-linguistic content to Ugrians, but Ugrian was originally an ethnic construct, if perhaps exonymic. But Ob-Ugrian is an entirely linguistic concept, so there is no non-linguistic content to Ob-Ugrian. If the Xanty and Mansi, and their now-extinct neighbors, shared a lot culturally or ethnically, that has little to do with whether the linguistic Ob-Ugric theory has any merit. The sources that speak of Ob-Ugric peoples as a language-based ethnic unit make the fallacy of reifying linguistic hypotheses as ethnic groups. — kwami (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid WP:OR, please define your terms and provide sources. What do you mean by "Ugrian" and which sources do you base your definition on? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically, the Ugrians were a collection of peoples, perhaps identified as such from the outside, that the Xanty and Mansi are thought to descend from. They have little to nothing to do with the purported Ob-Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. If Ob-Ugric is found to be valid, that won't confirm their existence, and if proves to be spurious, that won't make them disappear from the historical record.
    My main concern is that we don't promote the pseudo-scientific fallacy that linguistic relatedness determines ethnic relatedness. One consequence of that fallacy is that ethnicity would shift every time a linguist comes up with a new linguistic classification. For example, there was no 'Hamitic' people that disappeared into the ether when the Hamitic branch of Afroasiatic was abandoned, and claiming there was a Hamitic people that disappeared around 1960 would not be supported by ethnographic evidence. — kwami (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the definition. What you're proposing essentially hijacks the existing term "Ugrians" and assigns it a new meaning. Wouldn't this create confusion for readers when they compare your definition with how the term is used elsewhere in the literature? The suggestion also seems illogical. It goes to great lengths to avoid providing a collective name for the Khanty and Mansi, yet they still serve as a point of reference in the definition.
    I don't think we need to worry about shifting terminology in advance. If a change occurs and affects the field, Wikipedia will follow the updated terminology. However, Wikipedia doesn't lead by introducing new terms. For now, the ethnographic community has not rejected the term "Ob-Ugrians." For example, in Balzer's book that I mentioned earlier, the term "(Ob-)Ugrian" appears about 100 times over 300 pages. It is not an exception among the literature. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about. That is the traditional meaning of the term 'Ugrian'. The Xanty and Mansi are simply the surviving Ugrian peoples. In a modern context, Ugrian = Ob-Ugrian, but that's not true historically.
    It's easy to find psuedoscientific sources that reify linguistic terms as ethnic terms. We can also find sources that use astronomical terms for astrology, but that doesn't mean we should mimic them.
    If we moved this article to 'Ob-Ugrian', we'd need to recreate it at 'Ugrian' for the full topic. Then we'd want to change 'Ob-Ugrian' into a rd to the 'speakers' section of 'Ob-Ugrian languages' because it's a linguistic rather than ethnographic term, and we'd be right back where we started but with a corrupted article history. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the traditional meaning of the term 'Ugrian'. No reliable sources support your claim, so to me it looks like you've invented this meaning yourself. Prove me wrong. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. If you want to play stupid games, you can play them on your own time. If you haven't bothered to look up 'Ugrian', you haven't done the minimal research to argue for a page move. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a game, but a requirement of WP:V. I think the discussion about the "Ugrian Finns" above shows the level of your terminological confusion here. Anyway, according to OED, this book from 1838 features the earliest occurrence of the word Ugrian in English: [1]. Here it is given the meaning "Uralic-speaking peoples". So much for the traditional meaning. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'stupid game' is you pretending you don't understand things you obviously do. Yes, some sources base ethnicity on linguistics, as I've said several times. I don't follow how proving my point somehow disproves it. As an ethnographic term, different sources give 'Ugrian' [and 'Finn' etc. etc.] different scope, as you've already admitted you understand. E.g. Danver 2015, Native Peoples of the World, p.235, has,
    The Ugrians were influenced significantly by the Turks, and they are related ethnically and linguistically to the Finns and the Hungarians. Living next to Russians and Turks, the Ugrians gradually assimilated into those cultures, a fact that is reflected in many loan words from Russian and Turkic, along with southwestern Siberian dialects. The most prominent ethnic groups among the Ugrians are the Ket, Komi, Nenet, Selkup, and Votiak.
    Like Samoyedic, the name Ugrian, which is preferred by ethnographers, is derived from Russian. Russian chronicles of the twelfth century called the territory east of Perm Yugria. The Ugrians were the first Siberian peoples to come in contact with the Russians. Missionaries, hunters, and fur traders intruded step by step into the country of Yugria. The official annexation of the territory took place in the fifteenth century under Czar Ivan III, who used the title 'King of the Ugrians' in correspondence with Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus.
    Orthodox missionary activity among the Ugrians began in the fourteenth century under Bishop Stephen of Perm, who introduced the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets, but a written language was not accepted by the indigenous population until the nineteenth century. For example, Komi-language poems were printed for the first time in 1866.
    As for Ob-Ugrian, that doesn't match your intended meaning either. It's either the Ugrians in the region of the Ob River, the inhabitants of the region from Ugria to the Ob River, or the speakers of Ob-Ugrian languages, a hypothesis that's been abandoned in many recent sources.
    Sinor 1990 The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia states that the Xanty and Mansi are a mixture of Ugrians with Siberian immigration. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * (I've removed my own earlier comment here)
    Thanks for the sources. For the record, I thought you had already agreed that Danver's encyclopedia entry on Samoyeds was not reliable. I also disagree on your interpretation of Sinor. We clearly need some structure for the discussion, so I propose we discuss these sources in detail in a separate section. I will open the discussion during the next few days. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How much content would we have on a Xanty-Mansi article that wouldn't be redundant with the individual articles, and that wouldn't fit within the more general scope of Ugrian? If this article were developed enough to have substantial content, it would be easier to make a call. Currently, it's essentially just a dictionary entry for the ethnonym 'Ugrian'. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I see as the core topics about Ugrians and Ob-Ugrians:
    • There is not much discussion about "Ugrians" (in the broad sense, including Hungarians) in the literature. An article about them should cover the linguistic theories of their separation from the undifferentiated Uralic unity and the dissolution of the Ugric Sprachbund into what came to be Hungarians and Ob-Ugrians. For a recent reference, see [2]. Ugrians is essentially a linguistic taxonomic box, so this article should be mostly about linguistics, and there is large overlap with the article on Ugric languages. The weak cultural parallels between ancient Hungarians and Ob-Ugrians can be mentioned if the sourcing is strong enough.
    • An article about Ob-Ugrians should cover the origin of the Ob-Ugric languages in the Ugric sprachbund and the history of Ob-Ugrians in written sources. In some time periods, these people are not always differentiated, but are collectively referred to as "Yugra". This has overlap with Yugra, and the articles on Khanty people and Mansi people. In addition—and perhaps this would be the most valuable contribution to the encyclopedia—it should cover the concept of "Ob-Ugrians" which is widely used in the scientific literature but is not as a self-designation, and explain the relation between this concept and ethnicity. For example, it can also discuss in detail the strong connections between the Mansi and Northern Khanty, and how the Eastern Khanty differ from that group. A good-quality source discussing ethnicity is https://doi.org/10.3167/sib.2022.210103.
    Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your proposals are all linguistic and so should be covered in the linguistic articles. An ethnographic article such as this one should be ethnographic. I don't see how describing how the E.Xanty aren't culturally Ob-Ugrian is particularly useful; we'd just be saying that Ob-Ugrian isn't a valid ethnographic concept. Instead, the Xanty and Mansi ethnographic articles can discuss the strong cultural connections of the Mansi with the N. Xanty specifically. If enough is covered and those start to become a content fork, the topic might be split off as a separate article, but it wouldn't be Ugrian or even Ob-Ugrian in scope and so wouldn't be appropriate for this article, which we'd just have to recreate. — kwami (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us discuss the sources first, so that we establish the meaning of the term "Ugrian" in the literature. I've added an analysis of Danver below, and it cannot be used as a source for "Ugrians" in the sense that you've proposed. I will proceed with Sinor later. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And my proposals are linguistic, because that's how the literature treats these terms. If you disagree with my sources, please provide better ones. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Linguistic topics should be linguistic topics. Ethnographic topics should be ethnographic.. That's not a difficult concept. — kwami (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia can have articles on topics other than ethnic groups, in this case on a widely used scientific term "Ob-Ugrian", (which happens to have some ethnographic dimension, but is no self-designation of any group). We just need to frame the lead so that no confusion arises. In this case, I would support something like "Ob-Ugrians" is a term used in scientific literature for Khanty and Mansi, two culturally and linguistically related ethnic groups. There should also be a sourced critique of the term.
    A question: Do you think that "Ugrian" is a self-designation of some people? In other words, is the current article supposed to be about a linguistic or an ethnographic concept and is that choice of topic orientation supported by reliable sources? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAICT it's only an exonym.
    Ethnographic, of course. 'Ugrians' are people, as indicated by the plural -s. People are not languages. Ergo, 'Ugrians' are not languages.
    Ethnic terms are not linguistic concepts. As noted above multiple times. Treating them as such would be like having an article on 'Caucasian [White] languages' or 'Negro languages,' as if racial classifications were linguistic concepts. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I say we study Sinor and see what the concept is like in his book. In my opinion, it is fundamentally a linguistic grouping of peoples. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is, which is why it should be covered in linguistic articles. Sinor is engaged in pseudolinguistics. As soon as linguists change their classification, his purported historical peoples disappear.
    Ugrian, however, is an ethnic term. If it's not an important one, then we'll have a short article. Nothing wrong with that. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You provided two sources, Danver and Sinor. Danver is unreliable, and Sinor does not support your claim. On which sources do you base your interpretation of the term "Ugrian"? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as linguists change their classification, his purported historical peoples disappear. Theories posit an element of reality to fictional entities, and they can change. This is not problematic. In the case of the Ob-Ugrians, recent literature suggests that there was no Ugric or Ob-Ugric protolanguages, rendering the original linguistic classification invalid. Ugric has however not been entirely abandoned, but is now regarded as a geographic entity in recent reviews. Regardless of its linguistic status, the taxonomic label "Ob-Ugrians" has proven to be a useful generalization for ethnographers and continues to be used in the literature; see Ngram which shows increasing usage (this is completely undifferentiated with regard to quality of sources). One can also study the works of Ob-Ugric experts such as hu:Schmidt Éva to see that the term has been used by those directly involved in the field work. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I am still working through the nuances of this conversation, but I agree that linguistics should not determine ethnic classification. At the same time, I would be happy to review references as a third party. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, such review would be appreciated. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you comment on Balzer's book cited in the lede? Here's one link. Based on my reading:
    • Our current definition in the lede is not justified in its emphasis on past tense.
    • Balzer uses the words Ugrians and Ob-Ugrians mostly interchangeably, i.e. she usually uses "Ugrians" in the narrow sense.
    Is my reading correct? The latter point relates to your justification above. I don't see a difference between using the words Ugrian (in the narrow sense) or Ob-Ugrian; if one is problematic in mixing linguistics with ethnography, so is the other. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still recovering from unexpected illness, could you illustrate your point by showing how you envision the lead paragraph should be rewritten? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a draft with some topics that could be included in the article: Draft:Ob-Ugrians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Danver 2015

Here's my assessment of the encyclopedia entry on "Samoyedic" by Eva M. Stolberg, published in Danver 2015. (link to archive.org)

In general, the article is very unclear on the terminology as three terms—Samoyedic, Ugrian and Ob-Ugrian—are used apparently interchangeably and there are no clear definitions. I find these claims false:

  • It [the term Samoyedic] is a simplification of the ethnic composition of western Siberia, which is inhabited by a diverse set of Ob-Ugrian peoples. I find no support in the rest of the literature for the identification between Samoyeds and Ob-Ugrians.
  • Their territory streches from the northern course of Dvina River in northern Russia to the Ob River in western Siberia and the Sayan Mountains in the southwestern part of the Altay range. This is a correct statement for the Samoyeds (but not for Ob-Ugrians). However, notice that the geographical area has suddenly changed from the previous sentence—we are no longer restricted to western Siberia.
  • The most prominent ethnic groups among the Ugrians are the Ket, Komi, Nenet, Selkup, and Votiak. This is an arbitrary group of northern peoples, and such definition for "Ugrians" is found nowhere else in the literature. Nenets and Selkup are Samoyeds, but the others are not. "Votiak" is an old exonym for Udmurts, apparently considered offensive today.
  • Like Samoyedic, the name Ugrian, which is preferred by ethnographers, is derived from Russian. If I understand correctly, this sentence claims that "Ugrian" is preferred over "Samoyedic", meaning that they are synonyms. This is false, in the sense that such terminology is not shared by the rest of the literature.
  • Czar Ivan III, who used the title "King of the Ugrians" in correspondence with Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus. Ivan III used the words "velikij knjaz [...] Jugorskij [...] Ugorskomu kraju." Here Grand Prince of Yugra addresses the Ugor [Hungarian] king. "Ugrians" is not a very good translation since the principality and its people were known as Yugra. One translation of Ivan III's title can be found here.
  • Orthodox missionary activity among the Ugrians [...] under Bishop Stephen of Perm. Again, the Komi and Ugrians are confused with each other.

The entry cites four sources as Further reading:

  • One is Finno-Ugrian languages and peoples (1975) by Péter Hajdú. This book gives the usual taxonomic classification of Uralic peoples. Hajdú's book can be somewhat outdated, and it may not be appropriate in some contexts to collect ethnic groups in such linguistic boxes, but if the terms like Finno-Ugrians, Ugrians, Ob-Ugrians, and Samoyeds are nevertheless used, their conventional meaning can be found here. However, Stolberg's article does not agree with her source material.
  • Siberian Survival (1999) by Golovnev and Osherenko is a fine source on Nenets Samoyeds, and does not contain the above terminological confusion. In their terminology, they use Ugrians without the Ob: "Southern neighbors of the Nenets in Western Siberia are the Ugrians, the Khanty, and the Mansi (peoples belonging to the Ugric group of the Uralic language family)" [p.6] My argument against this usage in the proposed article title is WP:PRECISE: the meaning is ambiguous.
  • The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society is a collection of articles, none of which seems relevant for the Samoyeds, so it is unclear why it is mentioned here. However, Márta Csepregi's article The very highly connected nodes in the Ob-Ugrian networks gives the history of Ob-Ugrian studies, which is something that we could use.
  • Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia contains some discussion about Selkup linguistics and prehistory, but no confusion of terms.

Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In summary: This article is not a reliable source. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make absolute statements that you can't possibly know to be true.
Your dislike of a statement does not make the author 'confused'.
'King of Ugria' and 'King of the Ugrians' are both reasonable translations when the same word is used for both. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no absolute truth in terminology since words take their meaning by their usage, but here I wanted to point out that the terminology used by Stolberg in Danver 2015 is unclear and at odds with the rest of the literature.
In "King of Ugrian", its the omission of leading J or Y that makes the romanization dubious. Also, "King" is not the usual translation of Velikii Knyaz in Russian context. "Grand Prince" or "Great Duke" are more common. Here's how András Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages (1999) desribes this correspondence: After their subjugation, Ivan III assumed the title of the Great Duke of Yugria, which appears in a letter written to the "king of the Ugrians", that is to King Matthias of Hungary on 29 July 1488. It might be that Stolberg has reversed the roles of the rulers here, but I admit that I cannot know for sure, since she does not list her sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that veliky knyaz is more accurately translated as "grand prince", but Russian titles were never consistently translated. Hence why tsar was translated as both "king" and "emperor". I have also seen foreign texts where the knyaz (prince) is called king (rex). For example, when mentioning the prince of Pskov, the Livonian Chronicle of Henry says: "Nonne exacerbavit, quando regem magnum Woldemarum de Plosceke venientem in Lyvoniam cum exercitu subitanea morte percussit?". It is possible that it ended up being translated as "king", but I am not sure where to find the text for this correspondence. Mellk (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote velikij knjaz [...] Jugorskij [...] Ugorskomu kraju. is from Istvan Vasary's The "Yugria" Problem. The letter is dated July 29, 1488 and can be found in N. M. Karamzin, Istorija gosudarstva Rossijskogo, Tom VI, 4. izd. n. 257.
As Vasary presents in detail, its not only the translation that presents a problem, as even in the original Russian sources, Hungarians and Yugrians are sometimes identified/confused with each other. In my opinion, translating either Jugorskij (like Stolberg) or Ugorskomu (like Rona-Tas, but at least he does it in scare quotes) as 'Ugrian' is just perpetuating this confusion. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see in Muscovite Diplomatic Practice in the Reign of Ivan III, it says: "Iugra, in the Urals, was finally subjugated only in 1499, but the occasion for the inclusion in the title is probably the battle of 1484, as a result of which all the princes of Iugra acknowledged Russian sovereignty." (p. 230). It also says: "We know that in Vasilii III's reign Iurii Trakhaniot the Younger apparently attempted to exert a claim to Hungary on the basis of Russian control of Iugra, the claim apparently based on the similarity of names." (p. 231).
In Appendix M, it says the territories included in the title in 1484 was: Vladimir, Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Iugra, Viatka, and Perm. The translation of the title given is: "By Grace of God, Great Sovereign of the Russian land, Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evich, tsar of all Russia, of Vladimir, and Moscow and Novgorod and Pskov and Iugra and Viatka and Perm and other lands". I also created the article Yugra campaigns a while ago. Mellk (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds consistent with Vasary's text. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@kwami: Let us consider the last item in my list. Do you think Stolberg is correct in referring to Orthodox missionary activity among the Ugrians [...] under Bishop Stephen of Perm? Stephen of Perm is well-known for his missionary activities among the Komi, but the Komi are never called "Ugrians" in rest of the literature. If you think otherwise, it should be easy to produce sources. It is not possible to show the converse (without going through all of the literature), which is why the burden is on you. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here's Danver's entry on Komi. There are no indications that Danver's encyclopedia would be unreliable in general (e.g. there are no complaints about it in WP), and the author of the text is different, so the entry can tentatively be considered a reliable source. The entry gives a standard account of the Komi and says nothing about "Ugrians". Of course, lack of mention in one source is not a proof that Komi would not be considered "Ugrians" in other sources, but I see no evidence that they are. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read all the threads completely. However, I took a look at The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire and it says: "They successfully extracted products from the forest zone, their principle external resource base, and at the same time absorbed many cultural traits and ethnic elements from their Ob-Ugrian and Samoyed subjects." (p. 735). So it seems there is a distinction here? Mellk (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These peoples are classified based on their languages. For a systematic presentation, see The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. Denis Sinor, p.230 (Wikipedia library link). Ob-Ugrians speak Ob-Ugric languages while Samoyeds speak Samoyedic languages, so they are indeed different. Real people might of course not fall into such nice taxonomic boxes, but this is the terminology. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. We have Permian, Ob-Ugric, Samoyedic groups etc. It seems the dispute here is whether there should be an article that covers "Ugrians" (which supposedly refers to a people?). Indeed, the entry for "угры" (ugry) in the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary (Большой энциклопедический словарь) simply says: "a general name for linguistically related peoples - the Trans-Ural Mansi and Khanty, the Danube Hungarians (Magyars). They speak Ugric languages ​​of the Finno-Ugric group." Mellk (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether an article should exists and which concept of "Ugrians" it should use (and if a dab page should exist). One minor complication is that "Ugrians" has the above regular meaning—Ugrian speaking peoples—but is also sometimes used as a synonym for Ob-Ugrians.
  • The central dispute is about whether the term Ugrians refers to the linguistic grouping Sinor or the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary present. The alternative is that it refers to some collection of ancient peoples whose language does not necessarily have any simple relation to the languages of the present-day "Ugrians". However, I do not know which source supports the latter definition.
  • On the background there is the question whether WP should have articles on such collective ethnolinguistic concepts as "Ob-Ugrians", or whether they necessarily promote a simplistic relation between ethnicity and language and need to deleted.
  • In addition, there is also the question whether the ancient Ugrians are also considered to have been the (linguistic) ancestors of the Hungarians, or only the ancestors of the Khanty and Mansi.
Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not sure if there are sources (at least a few good ones) that use the term to refer to some kind of ancient people. But the indication so far is that general usage of the term refers to speakers of Ugric languages. The most complete article I can see on another project is ru:Угры. But I have not checked the quality of the sources. For the issue with it also being a synonym, then I think a hatnote is sufficient (linking to Ob-Ugric languages?), but I wonder if there is enough for a standalone article. Mellk (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, we don't want supposedly ethnographhic articles that in reality are reified linguistic hypotheses. Now that the Ugric hypothesis is being abandoned, does that mean that the Ugrians disappear? If there were an ethnographic group of Ob-Ugrian, and the linguistic clade merely copied the ethnic one, that would be a different matter. But Jähmefyysikko's sources suggest that there is exclusive cultural influence between some of the Xanty and Mansi, but not between those nations as a whole. Thus Ob-Ugrian is not an ethnographic concept. If there is not sufficient sourcing to support 'Ugrians' in the historical sense as the inhabitants of Ugria, then IMO this article should be made a RD to Yugra.
An exception to the above is when a protolanguage has been reconstructed to the extent that something can be said about the culture of the speakers, as is the case for proto-Indo-Europeans. But given that linguists don't even agree that there was such a thing as proto-Ob-Ugrian, that's clearly not the case here. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article by Wiget and Balalaeva mentions that a monolithic "Khanty" ethnicity is also an external (linguistic) classification. It is however used in official censuses. Our choice of articles is then already informed by linguistic classification. The cultural classification in that article is Mansi — Northern Khanty — Eastern Khanty, but it is also mentioned that the indigeneous identity is local (the people identify with a particular river), so these are also ethnographic generalizations. Regardless, I don't think we should break up the Khanty article to match these cultural boundaries, instead the solution is to add sourced discussion about ethnicity, and the same solution could work with Ob-Ugrians. Also note that Wiget and Balalaeva continue to use the term Ob-Ugrian even though they are aware that it is generalization.
I would not support redirecting to Ugrians or Ob-Ugrians to Yugra for multiple reasons:
  • The sources indicate that the primary meaning of the term "Ugrian" is "Ugric-speaking peoples", and that it is sometimes used for Ob-Ugrians, and only seldom for Yugra. A disambiguation page (or a hatnote) would be better for that reason.
  • Redirecting Ob-Ugrians (currently a redirect to Ugrians) to Yugra would also not be correct because this would restrict the term artificially to 12th to 17th centuries, while in the sources it is used even in modern contexts. Also, it might be a simplistic to identify the Yugra people as Ob-Ugrians. From Wiget & Balalaeva (2011): Napolskikh (2005) uses linguistic evidence to cast doubt on the presumption that the ethnolinguistic identity of the Iugrians was Ob-Ugrian. Conventional wisdom does make such an identification and Napolskikh is admittedly still a minority view.
Now that the Ugric hypothesis is being abandoned, does that mean that the Ugrians disappear? "Ugrians" is a theoretical concept. It does not disappear, but might become invalid. We can have articles on invalid/outdated concepts if sourcing is sufficient. In my opinion, this could be covered (with all the caveats on its validity) by adding to history section to Ugric languages and redirecting Ugrians there, but I don't oppose a separate article on "Ugric-speaking peoples" under the title "Ugrians" if someone want to make such an article. Some related content is at Hungarian prehistory#Formation of the Magyar people.
I'll look into the sourcing on Ob-Ugrians and build something in a sandbox to make it easier to decide the fate of a stand-alone Ob-Ugrians article. If that seems to fail, then I would redirect Ob-Ugrians to Ob-Ugric languages. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Draft:Ob-Ugrians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that would be a new article. This would remain, either as a stub or, more likely, as a dab page [as you suggested above] to 'Yugra'. So why not just create the article you propose under the name you propose?
You said above that we should 'discuss in detail the strong connections between the Mansi and Northern Khanty, and how the Eastern Khanty differ from that group'. Yet you never mention that in the draft.
As for the Khanty not being a single ethnicity, per Wiget and Balalaeva, that's true of a great many languages, which is why we created the term 'ethno-linguistic group'.
You never mention the perhaps-coincidental similarity of names being used for -- and perhaps motivated by -- a pseudo-historical claim for Hungary.
You ask, 'there is the question whether WP should have articles on such collective ethnolinguistic concepts as "Ob-Ugrians", or whether they necessarily promote a simplistic relation between ethnicity and language and need to deleted.' They should be deleted, unless there is external justification for the concept. You mention some cultural orgs that suggest 'Ob-Ugrian' has meaning to people apart from the supposed linguistic connection.
The bear cult is widespread, and does not define an Ob-Ugrian people.
You admitted somewhere that the linguistic connection is dubious, but do not mention that in the draft either.
What is there ethnographically that defines an Ob-Ugric people apart from their neighbors? — kwami (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the questions. I wanted to push this out relatively quickly, so not everything that could be there in the article is in place yet, but it should be enough to get an overall feeling about the quality of the sources. I'll take your suggestion: I'll improve and expand the article and publish it later. I do still support making a dab out of Ugrians, since the stub would not be supported by sources.
Answers the questions:
  1. I did not explicitly mention this connection, but once we go into more detail on the culture, but it should become clearer. Now it is only vaguely implied in the short part about religion, in the sense that the Northern variant of the mythology is common for both Northern Khanty and Northern Mansi. Note to self: [3] also supports the geographic rather than linguistic division: Culturally, the Khanty in the different areas are closely related to the other Ob-Ugrian people, the Mansi, but linguistically the two ethnic groups are clearly differentiated. This means for example that the northern Khanty have a culture that is more similar to the culture of the northern Mansi than to that of the southern and eastern Khanty.
  2. Ethnolinguistic group per definition given in WP is a single ethnicity, so I'm not sure whether you mean the same concept. But the discussion about ethnicity is definitely still rough. Balzer and Wiget & Balalaeva can be used to improve this part.
  3. The coincidental names are not very high on my the priority list for this article, but could perhaps be added to a section on linguistics, or to a section about the history of Ob-Ugric studies, if such sections were to be written.
  4. The bear cult is widespread, but the Ob-Ugrian bear festival and the associated mythology is quite unique.
  5. About weak linguistic connection: There definitely could be a separate section on linguistics, which would discuss the classification and history of the languages properly. Oxford Uralic Guide would be a good reference for that. Mentioning that the languages diverged thousands of years ago would already give the reader a hint that something else than linguistic similarity is at play.
  6. I don't have a simple answer to what sets them apart from their neighbours. Their neighbours should anyway be mentioned, to not give an illusion that they live in a vacuum.
+ There are many other missing items like the common Ob-Ugric history (from Forsyth).
Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sinor 1990

This might have been resolved already in the above, but for transparency, let me quote some of the things what Denis Sinor writes about the Ugrians in his Cambridge history of early Inner Asia (1990). The discussion is located in the chapter called The peoples of the Russian forest belt, which is devoted mostly to Uralic peoples.

  • Sinor is aware of the difficulties with using ethno-linguistic terms for this time period and provides some caveats in a subchapter The early Uralic community (p. 230). According to him, terms are to be understood in a very loose, schematic sense. He nevertheless gives a traditional linguistic classification of present-day Uralic peoples. This is what he says on Ugrians: Ugric includes the Hungarians and Ob-Ugrian peoples, the Mansi (Vogul) and Khanty (Ostiak).
  • He then provides some discussion about prehistory of the Uralic languages. On page 232 he starts describing the history of Ugrians: Finno-Ugrian unity gave way in the course of the third to second millenia B.C. in connection with this westward movement. The Ugrians remained in the old Kama-Ural sites with perhaps some movement towards the south. This location of the Ugrians was decisive for the subsequent development of those elements amongst them which came to form the Hungarians. There is a detailed description of the formation of Hungarians in the steppe.
  • Medieval history of Ob-Ugrians is again discussed on pp.254-255 in subchapter The Ob-Ugrians. There is a short discussion on Yugra/Iugra.

Based on Sinor's text, even if we define the Ugrians in a historic sense ("Ugrians were the ancestors of the Khanty and Mansi people..."), as is currently done in the article, then we clearly also need to include Hungarians on that list of peoples. If we retain only Khanty and Mansi, then we should rename the article to Ob-Ugrians. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Ugrians" an old exonym?

There seems to be some tacit assumption that "Ugrian" is some traditional exonym, which the modern scholarship has redefined. This is not the case, instead it is a linguistic term from the first time it is mentioned in English language in 1838 (as mentioned above). The history of this term goes back to two separate Russian words, ugry (for Hungarians) and jugra (for Ob-Ugrians) which were identified with each other by scholars starting from Matthias de Miechow in 16th century. Some have claimed this connection to be a kind of a folk etymology and that the term Ugric/Ugrian arose from such scholarly constructions. See I. Vásáry, The "Yugria" Problem in Chuvash Studies (1982) ed. András Róna-Tas. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ugrians