Talk:Ingria

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question

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)[reply]

What is wrong with the map?

Historic regions of Ingria

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)[reply]

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 At least, these territories were never called by these names in historical documents.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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I do not think it is correct as the caption currently states: "Ingria and the Lutheran parishes in the Saint Petersburg Governorate ca. 1900". The westernmost part a part of Ingria was transferred to Estonia after the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) in 1920, the so called Estonian Ingria. The map clearly indicates Kosemkina parish not to include this part. Estionian Ingria formed an own parish around the church in Kallivieri between the year 1920-1940 when the church was operating. I think the map illustrates the parishes around year 1930. --Kr-val 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article needs a map of a much larger area to give some perspective. to anyone not already familiar with the geography, these maps mean very little. show it n relation to all of finland, or all of the eastern baltic.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you for support. I have no possibility to report on every vandalism. --Ottorahn 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Deleting interwiki links is a form of vandalism and should be reported as such. -- Petri Krohn 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link to the Russian version at ru-sib. Surprise? --Pan Gerwazy 10:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Gratuitous accusations of vandalism are a sign of black face and merit a block. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"get more votes for their language". And it works, of course: [12]--Pan Gerwazy 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

What are reasons why the link to picture

The Ingrian flag [1]

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

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

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):

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Inkere (Inkerenmaa) - Inkeri (Inkerinmaa) / Izhora (Ingermanland)

I think in this page something must be done to create the historical rules which to be followed.

In Finnish history Inkere (Inkerenmaa) the time period before 1617.

In Finnish history Inkeri (Inkerinmaa) the time period 1617 - 1721.

In Finnish history Inkeri (Ingermanland) historical province between Narva River and Lava River under Swedish - Finnish Kingdom 1617 (Treaty of Stolbova) - 1721 (Treaty of Nystad).

But geographically the area from Narva River to Olhava River. Southern border run from Peipsijärvi following the great Nevas (Suursuot) which separated the Finnish population (Vatjas, Inkerikot, Savakot and Äyrämös) from Russian population living mainly south of this big fen belt.

Just to make things clear please note the situation after 1617 (Treaty of Stolbova).

Inkerinmaa (Ingermanland)

- Iivananlinnan lääni, (Ivangorod län), Ivangorod province

- Jaaman lääni, (Jama län), Jama province,

- Pähkinälinnan lääni, (Nöteborg län), Nöteborg province

--- Kuiwas pogosta

--- Keltus pogosta

--- Loppis pogosta

--- Jaroselski pogosta

--- Tuterois (Duderhof) pogosta

--- Ingerois (Iserski) pogosta

--- Spaski pogosta

--- Koroselski pogosta

Together in 1618 602 mantals of which 84 mantals by the time not inhabited.

The area was south of Käkisalmen lääni / Kexholm län. The Ingermanland was admistrationally south of Viipuri lääni / Viborg län and from pogostas Pyhäjärvi, Sackula, Rautus and Räisälä which formed the southern Käkisalmi lääni / Kexholm län. (Total 432 mantals in 1619)

The northern Käkisalmi lääni / Kexholm län was formed from Tjurala, Koitsanlax, Jougio, Kurkijoki, Uguniemi, Kides, Libelits, Tomajärvi, Pelkijärvi, Sordavala, Suojärvi, Ilomants, Salmis and Suistamo pogostas. (Total 2761 mantals in 1618)

Please note that Siestarjoki (Systerbäck) was in Viipuri lääni / Viborg län up to Februry 15, 1864 and belonged to Kivennapa when it was transferred with Imperial Ukaze to Russian Empire. In return Alexander II promised as compensation to Grand Duchy of Finland Petsamo area. Area from Norwegian border to Jaakopinjoki in Stolbova Bay in Arctic Sea. Only after this date Siestarjoki belonged adminstrationally to St.Petersburg gubernija (former Izhora gubernija).

All these information are available in former Valtionarkisto (State archive), Helsinki.

I recommend others than Finnish speaking users also visit in Finnish (Suomi) web sides and click Inkeri or Inkerinmaa. There is much information available also in English and Russian.

JN

ru-sib links again

Somebody asked this: [16]. Just to clarify: The warning is, of course, only directed at bots. Bots should never be designed to do controversial edits and overrule human editors. Unfortunately the pywikipedia interwiki bots are misdesigned in this respect, and there doesn't seem to be an easy way to stop them, short of telling all bot operators to never link to ru-sib at all. In effect, what we got is a bot army waging a months-long revert war against most of the local editors, mostly without even the knowledge of their operators, and that can't be tolerated.

There is no official decision or consensus on whether this link should be there or not, either way. Only fact I can see is that the ru-sib link is controversial. If an editor, not a bot, wishes to re-open the discussion and advocate the inclusion of that link, they are obviously welcome to do so.

By the way, I can't help noticing that on other articles there are iw links to ru-sib articles that are much worse than this one (e.g. the one from Russia), and nobody seems to have been protesting. I'm not sure why this particular link has become such a charged issue. The particular article at ru-sib seems pretty harmless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikimedia Council, Jury or whatever they call their bureaucracy summarily closed cyrillic language Moldovan wikipedia, but keep this sibirskoy monstrocity despite vocal opposition expressed in voting and nasty behavior of its proponent, which, taken combined, I explain only by Russophobia. This particular article was objected because its early version contained false claims. In addition, it proparates an offensive term for some finnic peoples alleging that it is normal "sibirskoy" word. `'Miikka 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, thanks for the explanation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is worse. Hamlet for instance - but there is a False Flag operation going on here. Under the guise of an encyclopedia, there is actual ethnic hatred being planted here. Not only have these things (the racial slurs and the obscenities at the end of Hamlet) not been NPOVed since they were pointed out to these "Owners" of the language (back in 2006), but in the meantime, though their number of articles has not gone up muich, they managed to add more to this pile: for instance, the talk page with the principal owner accusing the Maskali of ... Russophobia would be funny if you did not understand why they do it. --Pan Gerwazy 15:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive? So do you guys understand the language? How come? I don't, and I can't say whether it is offensive. And even if I could, for sure that's not my business. What is funny is the obsession of the people hunting for ru-sib interwikis all over Wikipedia. Ok then, the circus must go on. Colchicum 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we understand an artificial language which is constructed dialect of Russian peppered with lots of slang and foul language. And it is none of our business to know that some things are none of your business. One cannot embrace the whole wild world. And your snickering off things you don't understand and not of your business doesn't show you from the best side. As if you didn't know yet that wikpedia is one big circus. And if some people didn't chase morons and vandals all over wikipedia it would have been the largest circus ever. `'Miikka 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about others, but I am here not in order to show myself from whatever side. For that purpose I simply don't exist, so I've missed your point. Colchicum 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, if you don't know what to say useful, just keep it to yourself. Your remark serves nothing but to imply that we are a bunch of <insert favorite diparaging term for low intellect> who have nothing better to do. We know this already, thanks. `'Miikka 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I, with my limited knowledge of Russian, can recognize these racial slurs, I suppose you do not understand any Russian. But I already know the argument: if you don't know the language, why do you think you can judge it, and if you know the language, why do you not go there and correct it. The problem with this argument is that this thing is not a language and that their "V" stands for virtual and not for verifiable. The article the bots want to link still does not know how to write "Sweden". If two Swedish users were to go to the vote page and vote against ru:sib, I would not be surprised if owner Yaroslav would declare that the Siberian word for "Sweden" is actually "Trushchoba", "Skalozubia", "Dungenland" or whatever. And by the way, I do not have to learn much Siberian anyway, seeing that their article on Denmark is in Belarusian (has also been so for a very long time) and that most of the discussion on their talk pages is in Russian (the rest is in some jargon that combines Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian and the lingo they (not always) use in their articles).--Pan Gerwazy 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Limited" is the key. In essence, you're seeing words that resemble racial slurs in languages you know better, and think that they must be slurs in that language, too. What next, declaring that 'neeger' in Estonian language is a slur? Digwuren 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Estonian, Siberian is an invented language. Their creators knew what they were doing. Their language contains quite a few new words. They don't use malorossy or khokhols for Ukrainians or uriuks for Uzbeks or else. `'Míkka 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The threat does not have basis in WP:POLICY. Accordingly, I have removed it.

Interwiki links can not, in themself, be controversial, as long as semantic mapping is done properly. In this case, there's no question of mistaken mapping; the supposed "controversy" is about the legitimacy of the Siberian language Wikipedia. Apparently, Wikimedia Foundation considers it legitimate, but some Wikipedia editors (who appear to all be ethnically Russian) find it offensive, and in attempt to justify the censorship, have concocted this "controversy". This is not a legitimate process. Digwuren 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links cannot be controversial? Well, but this one is controversial, for whatever reasons. You are free to believe that nobody ought to find it controversial, but you can't stop people from doing so nevertheless. As far as my administrative actions are concerned, this will be treated as a content dispute, like any other. Work it out by the usual processes. My administrative "threat" is, as I said, only directed against bots revert-warring, as such it stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

This article has been protected due to the edit warring over the interwiki links. A discussion is in place at WP:BOWN and WT:BOT. — xaosflux Talk 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting bots is not edit warring. Please unblock the article. Besides, how do you argue with a bot? -- Petri Krohn 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is due to the fact that multiple bots, each doing useful tasks, may add the link, and it is very inefficient to block them all. I assume anything other than the interwiki link changes can be done using an {{editprotected}} request. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove the protection. Pywikipedia no supports {{nobots}}, i just tested it with my bot and this page was skipped. If the link still gets added by a bot please leave a message on the bot owners talk page that he should update his or her bot to the latest svn version. multichill 09:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
valhallasw@elladan:~/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia$ python interwiki.py en:Ingria
Getting 1 pages from wikipedia:en...
(...)
Getting 1 pages from wikipedia:nl...
[[en:Ingria]]: [[nl:Ingermanland]] gives new interwiki [[ru-sib:Ингерманландия]]
(...)
Getting 1 pages from wikipedia:ru-sib...
======Post-processing [[en:Ingria]]======
Updating links on page [[en:Ingria]].
Ignoring link to [[ru-sib:Ингерманландия]] for [[en:Ingria]]
No changes needed
Updating links on page [[nl:Ingermanland]].
No changes needed
WARNING: wikipedia: [[en:Ingria]] does not link to [[ru-sib:Ингерманландия]]
valhallasw@elladan:~/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia$

Good enough? Committed in r4106, even though this entire ignore-this-link idea is crazy. ValHallASW 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ru-sib wikipedia is closed now

See [17]. multichill 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Inkere empty berore 750?

Heh,hee. Typical, the world was created when the Indo-European Scandinavias (NOT VIKINGS IN EAST) come and followed, of course, by the Russians. Which Russians?. There were not Russians at that time. There were only Slavonic heimos (tribes) divided to those who spoked somekind of Slavonic language or who did not. Then they were separated to Western Slavs, Southern Slavs and the Eastern Slavs. And the Western Slavs become later Poles, Czechs and Slovakis which adopted later Roman Catholic religion and writing in Latinized alphabet. But where are the original inhabitants of Ingermanland? The Inkerot and Vatjans. Dropped from the sky peharps.

There is something missing in the article. The Total Finnish, Estonian, and Ingermanlanders INSIDE ADMINSTRATIONAL BORDERS in CITY of St.Petersburg in 1914 was 150.000 formed as follows:

  • Legal inhabitants of Finnish origin, having internal passport of The Grand Duchy of Finland 63.000
  • Finns settled without legal permission in St.Petersburg c.20.000 (so called black workforce).
  • Ingermanlanders from surrounding Ingermanland 9.000
  • Estonians 58.000

They formed about ten per cent of the total population inside the City of St.Petersburg. The total number of illigal Finns were only estimated, because they just walked over the border in Northern Ingermanland on places where were not any formalities. Then they continued their own way through Ingermanland to St.Petersburg. Nobody checked their working permissions when they were employed by local enterprises. I personally knew at least three of them with motto; Where a skilled worker earned in Viipuri one mark, they earned in St.Petersburg two marks from the same job.

The 1926 figures show the situation after May 1921 when most of the Estonians and Finns had left Petrograd back to Estonia and Finland. There were of course some who did not leave. Those married with the Russians and decided to stay and gave up the passports and took the citizenship of Soviet Russia.

Retusaari / Kotlin Island

Here is nice piece of totally missing history. In the island of Retusaari which from 1617 belonged to Kivennapa at Viborg län. It was used mainly in summer time as a place where they placed cattle during summer. A long lived habit of local inhabitants. Seven families of Kivennapa, those who lived in Siestarjoki, owned the island. Later in mid 1600´s one family named Kivekäs moved permanently into island, built their houses and acted also fishermen and seal hunters. The family had about 20 members in 1697 who lived at Retusaari. One morning in 1699 there become a raw boat in the beach carrying only one young man and an old man sitting on the back of the boat. They did not talk anything, watched just around and returned back to their boat and dissapeared back to the bay. One young man of Kivekäs family watched carefully their doings, but he decided not to kill them because he felt they are unharmless. One was quite young and the other too old to be of any danger. So he let them go. Had he known, as he later told, that they were Tsar Peter and one old Duke he would had killed both of them. So the history is doing strange things and often has details which could have been changed the main stream of history.

Gediminids with ties with Ingria

Miihkali Antreinpoika Golitsin was governor of Pihkova in the 1680s. 82.181.234.211 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Ingria

Swedish fortress Nyenschantz, now St. Petersburg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyenschantz

Map problems

The map labels are not in English. It would be very helpful to label something on the map "Ingria", because it is unclear what part that is. -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ingria"