Talk:Eskimo/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reversion, due to recent non-scientific edits to this page

I am not sure why folks are quite so persistent in adding incorrect information to this page. Wikipedia is a platform that values scientific fact over opinion. Eskimo, by scientific consensus, DOES NOT come from "eaters of raw meat". The linguistic origin, by scientific consensus, of the word Eskimo, IS "snowshoe netter" or "one who nets snowshoes". The words "Eskimo" and "Inuit" DO NOT have the same meaning, and to say or in any way imply that they do or that they might represents a MASSIVE bias. None of the above is "controversial". The 1977 Inuit Circumpolar Council, and some of the decisions it made, were HIGHLY controversial, even in 1977, let alone now. To those individuals who are not informed about the subject: please don't edit the article. It's not a complete article, and it does need information added, and it does need worked on with scientific thought and diverse perspective, but that work is very difficult to do if deletions are being made in a way that is effectively at random and if innacurate information is continually being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You are missing an important point. The article isn't saying that "scientific consensus" says it is from eaters of raw meat. What it says is that some people believe that and that is true they do think that. There are many Inuit who think the eaters of raw meat is correct, in part because they have never met another Inuit who made snowshoes. And indeed the word Eskimo was used in a derogatory manner. You have a bias in trying to minimise the Inuit by removing their beliefs. And stop shouting. It doesn't prove anything. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You are missing *my* important point, I think. There is a scientific consensus about the etymology of the word, and the citation which is provided for the statement that such consensus does not exist in fact states that it does exist. Anything else is just unscientific claptrap, so I am re-editing that single sentence in the article to reflect what the actual reference says, not what it is being claimed to say. The "bias" is something you just made up, I'm afraid. I have no such bias, and nothing I have said indicates any such bias. I respect the right of Inuit peoples and all other peoples to be referred to as they wish, within all reason, regardless of history, regardless of etymology, and regardless of the very real difference between those two things. Use of capital letters here was not intended to "shout" but for emphasis. Sorry if I offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is heavy bias in the statement about the "Smithsonian Institute's beliefs", and in any case the statement is totally redundant, so I have removed that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a scientific article but one about real living people. You are still trying to minimise the Inuit who still believe the incorrect raw meat meaning. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop using loaded language, I'm editing in good faith. Where scientific the article should be scientific. Agreed that where the subject material is not scientific it isn't rational to apply science to it. Maybe you're right that I engaged in that inadvertently, and I agree we should err on the side of not making that mistake. I'll revert the edits on that specific point-- reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've re-edited the "Description" section in a way which I believe fairly addresses your concern, have a look and see what you think!

I shortened it down. The bit "Perhaps unrelatedly..." leads with an opinion. The bit about the meat being better doesn't fit but would in Inuit diet. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, re: opinion. Not to nitpick, but "Cassar" or raw meat is also part of Yu'pik traditional diet, and the same ideas apply. I see what you mean about it not fitting, but it's not irrelevant either. I think we should try to find a way for it to fit. It might make sense to locate the information elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Sure. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo Does Not Mean "Eater of Raw Meat"

Just so we're all perfectly clear, there are a plethora of non-scientific, folk etymology sources for the idea that "Eskimo" means "Eater of Raw Meat", but zero modern scientific sources, and zero sources which are backed up by objective fact.

There are a plethora of modern scientific or etymological sources and sources that directly reference modern science or etymology which state very clearly that the etymological meaning of "Eskimo" is "one who nets [or laces] snowshoes". Some of these are cited in this Wikipedia article, including but not limited to the following:

1. Kaplan, Lawrence. "Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?" Alaskan Native Language Center, UAF.

2. Israel, Mark. "Eskimo". Alt-usage-english.org. Archived from the original on 2012-04-03. Retrieved 2012-06-13

3. Stason.org, Stas Bekman: stas (at). "91 "Eskimo" (Word origins - alt.usage.english)". stason.org

4. "Eskimo | Definition, History, Culture, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica

5. Cutter, Charles, "O Brave New Words!: Native American Loanwords in Current English", ch. 9, p.95, University of Oklahoma Press, 2000

There are, again, zero modern scientific or etymological sources, or sources that directly reference modern science or etymology, which state that the etymological meaning of "Eskimo" is "eaters of raw meat", or that it has any other meaning in etymology besides "one who nets [or laces] snowshoes". Zero.

That's called scientific consensus. Thanks for your attention.

69.178.53.217 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You are really determined to miss the point. Nobody is trying to dismiss the fact that it is derived from netting snowshoes. That is the consensus and is reflected in the article. However, the sentence "Some people, including historians, still believe that Eskimo translates to "eater of raw meat", which may be seen, or used, in a pejorative way." has nothing to do with what science or experts think. It is about what ordinary people think. A lot of people, and that includes many Inuit, still believe that it means eaters of raw meat. I don't know why but they do. Probably because snowshoes were not common among the Inuit. It is the same as vaccines. There is no evidence that they cause autism but lots of people still believe that they do. We don't ignore that just because it isn't the scientific consensus. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Watch the ad hominem please. A historian is an expert on history, so in that regard, there is a clear self-contradiction in the above paragraph. That which is scientific consensus and, in some cases, that which is contrary to scientific consensus, should be delineated. That which is correct and, in some cases, that which is not correct should also be delineated. Absolutely, if something does not fall under the (narrow) heading of scientific consensus, that by itself is no reason for it to be ignored.

It is perhaps a minor point, but I have to add that the use of precursors like "has nothing to do with..." and "It is about..." indicate bias. Words are what they are, say what they say, mean what they mean, and that is all, and accuracy in using them is the essence of what it means to be encyclopedic.

Thanks for your time. 69.178.53.217 (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Naming

The article states that "The Inuit and Yupik peoples generally do not use it to refer to themselves." This needs to be edited, removed, or backed up with a citation. I know from personal experience in Alaska that there are Native Alaskans who do use the term Eskimo to refer to themselves, and to more broadly encompass Native Alaskans who are Inupiaq, Yupik, or Yup'ik. Dowobeha (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The CBC article used to reference that Inuit don't see Eskimo as pejorative does not say that. All that the article shows is that some Inuit don't mind the name of the football team being the Edmonton Eskimos but not that they want to be called Eskimo. It's easy enough to find people that object both to the team name and being called Eskimo, Natan Obed (Attention Edmonton Eskimos: Inuit are not mascots) and Tanya Tagaq (Paula Simons: Time to hear Tanya Tagaq's Eskimos challenge) for example. I have plenty of Inuit friends that don't mind the name of the team but don't want to be called Eskimo and others who don't want the team named Eskimos either. Aldep77 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather The CBC article does cite Inuit people calling themselves proudly Eskimos "we are the real Eskimos", so they do not see it as offensive as wiki page tells. Therefore the statement that all Inuit view it as offensive is wrong. I mention that this issue is controversial. Added another reference to the co-op store that is located in several Inuit villages, ran by Innuit and called "Eskimo co-op"

How can name of peoples be seen as pejorative? It needs to be explained in the article if stated. I suppose, it may be seen pejorative among a group or groups of racist people. Or is there some other reason that is not trivial? Please add it to the article. 37.76.67.159 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A television documentary in the United States a couple of years ago described and showed the experiences of a fisherman in Northern Canada. He described himself as "an Eskimo" during the course of the programme and talked in general about the "Eskimo" experience. I did not catch the name of the documentary because I arrived after the title credits has been shown but it was on the PBS channel. — O'Dea (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Eskimos and Raw Meat

So, it is reported by this article (and elsewhere) that some people think that Eskimo means "eaters of raw meat".

As almost all people who have looked into the subject even fleetingly have at this juncture thoroughly agreed, it does not mean that, this being essentially a folk etymology-- an origin presented without any evidence, albeit by a etymologist, although several decades ago now.

Before I get to my point, let me lay out a few highly relevant details, balanced on both sides of the various arguments people might choose to make:

It is possible (very likely) that in some parts of the world, among some groups, the offensiveness of the word "Eskimo" has taken on a life of its own. The situation in eastern Canada is probably a good example of this. I'm not disputing this feeling that people, or Inuit people in any case, may have about the word, nor the relevance of that feeling. We don't need to define exactly the origin of that feeling, though it is only properly encyclopedic to give some context.

However, it is 2020, and to say that people think "Eskimo" means "eaters of raw meat", in the context that it is *therefore* offensive just does not quite belong in a Wikipedia article. Some people also think that the world is flat, yet to point that out in any kind of a neutral fashion is a literal Wikipedia textbook example of undue weight.

To present it as what it is, on the other hand-- as a misconception, is very much relevant, and very much encyclopedic. The problem here is twofold. One, Eskimo is being couched as a fundamentally "barbaric" descriptor-- it is not. Second, Eskimo has been put forward as meaning "eaters of raw meat", which it also does not.

Now, the statement that "Eskimo" is *some sort* of barbaric descriptor is an opinion, and its veracity more or less comes down to whether creating snowshoes is barbaric, or perhaps to your definition of the word "barbaric", and this is a discussion into which it's not my intention to dive.

To state, with qualification, that "some people" think Eskimo means "eaters of raw meat", although it's not particularly verifiable that "some people" think this with any ethnic or geographical stake in the subject, is probably not a horrible Wikipedian crime, except if it is stated without the caveat that it is etymologically incorrect.

It's totally reasonable to be culturally sensitive in the sense that, while there's not a lot of people openly claiming that the word is an "insult", there are a lot of people who don't like to be called "Eskimo", and some who are downright offended by it. Regardless of the anthropological usefulness of the word, it makes sense to state the way people feel about it. The real problem is when you have a misconception built on top of a misconception (the idea that "Eskimo is a barbaric descriptor because it means eaters of raw meat"), and due to the complexity of that fact, or indeed any hedge towards cultural sensitivity, you neglect to point out the following obvious facts:

(1) Eskimo does not mean "Eaters of Raw Meat" (2) By no reasonable definition of the term "barbaric" does eating raw meat in arctic/ sub-arctic qualify as barbaric, nor did it ever qualify as barbaric. The contrary is true, and backed up by solid peer-reviewed literature.

The first point has, again, long been effectively addressed by the editors of this article. The second point has not. I made the following edit, but it was removed based on it "being in the wrong article", with the suggestion given above that it belongs in the Inuit Diet article. Well-intentioned I am sure, but as there is no "Eskimo Diet" article, until one does exist, this misses the point at a 180 degree angle.

With the above explanation in mind, unless someone (preferably someone new, if that's not too much to ask?) can give me a slightly better reason why the following text shouldn't be added back into the "Description" section, then... yeah. The referenced statement below follows a comment about the "eaters of raw meat" / barbaric descriptor perspective.

Here is the text, with references:

>>>

It is ironic that, unlike cooked meat, raw meat contains vitamin D, which protects from the life-threatening disease rickets, especially in times of little or no sunlight.[1][2] Hence, the actual eating of raw meat in the arctic once represented a "cultural technology" superior to that of European colonists in Greenland and northern North America.[3]

<<<

Ref.s [1]

[2]

[3]

Just FYI all, the Wikipedia editor text to be set in the "description" section looks like this (in quotes);

"

It is ironic that, unlike cooked meat, raw meat contains vitamin D, which protects from the life-threatening disease rickets, especially in times of little or no sunlight. Hence, the actual eating of raw meat in the arctic once represented a "cultural technology" superior to that of European colonists in Greenland and northern North America.

"

To me, this specific wording and context seems like a simple, cut and dried entry, which will improve the article. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your name in Talk Pages by adding four tildes to the end of your post, please, thanks. Other editors more involved with this page will hopefully respond, but I think the biggest issue is WP:SYNTHESIS. The Discover Magazine source has information about why Arctic people like the Inuit and Yupik would eat raw meat, though as far as I can tell the source doesn't explicitly say cooked meat lacks vitamin D, just that they do get vitamin A, D and C from their diet and that vitamin C is often lost during cooking. And it seems the Acad Forensic Pathol. source is just for the statement of Vitamin D preventing rickets when there's little or no sunlight, but that source doesn't explicitly tie in to a diet of raw meat or use the phrase "cultural technology", or say anything about this being "superior" to what the European colonists were doing. The NPR source just mentions the incorrect etymology some people believe. And perhaps most importantly for the bit under discussion, none of these sources tie the practice of eating raw meat to whether or not people should feel shame/insult others for this practice and how the benefits of eating raw meat in relation to, say, preventing rickets, are related to what people feel about the word "Eskimo" vis-à-vis the etymology many believe it to have. The relevance of this section to why people may or may not ascribe negative connotations to the word Eskimo, to me, seems like Original Research, which isn't done on Wikipedia. Umimmak (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph about raw meat being good for you belongs in Inuit diet or somewhere else in this article. It does not fit in the description section as it has nothing to do with the name of the people and shouldn't say "ironic". Nobody is saying that eating raw meat is barbaric and I'm not sure where you are getting that idea from because nobody other than you has brought that up. The truth is that some Inuit, including members of my extended family and my friends, feel the term is offensive and still think it means eaters of raw meat (Expert says ‘meat-eater’ name Eskimo an offensive term placed on Inuit and Natan Obed: why the name “Edmonton Eskimos” harms Inuit). It doesn't matter what the real meaning is but people find it offensive as a colonialist term. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sunasuttuq, that was an exact quotation from the article at the time. And I'll pass on the bucket of red herrings, kippered or no.

Umimmak, I believe I understand your perspective, but I don't think I can fully agree with your critiques. Cited facts from research are by definition not orginal research, and the claims put forward are *very* well supported, and although admittedly the referencing was not perfect or complete by any means. I did feel it covered most of the ground that it needed to, and I feel that it is incumbent on other editors to improve upon the job I've done, rather than just deleting my edits wholesale without adequate justification. I intend no bitterness or animosity by saying that-- my style is a bit blunt, but such is simply the way I see what happened here. In any case, thanks for sharing. I do not feel that my points have been sufficiently addressed, but I appreciate that you have tried to do so. We have to be willing to discuss questions from different perspectives without being toxic, and that clearly is not easy on this topic.

To update, CambridgeBayWeather has addressed this question in a way that I feel is sort of "dumbing down" the article (leaving out critical information on both sides of an important question), but (1) perhaps that's the best approach until consensus can be achieved and better referencing performed and (2) at least there is a record of this conversation on the Talk page, and if necessary it can be referred to / revisted by editors at a later date.

Thanks, all, for your participation. 69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Eating raw meat is not barbaric – quite the contrary. I was served raw meat (steak tartare) in a family home in Paris. French cuisine is widely admired globally for its sophistication and elegance. Raw fish in Japan (sashimi) and Latin America (ceviche) is also widely respected internationally, being regarded as elegant and sophisticated rather than barbaric. — O'Dea (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo is not a Self-referential

Please note: the term "Eskimo" is not a historic, linguistic, or cultural self-referential. It is *sometimes* used as a self-referential, and this is fairly easy to prove. However, the statement that "the Inuit and Yupik peoples generally do not use [this term] to refer to themselves" does not require a citation, because it is, again, not a historic, linguistic, or cultural self-referential, and so the burden of proof lies on the person trying to show that the statement is false. The encyclopedic relevancy of this statement to the article's introduction is a different debate, but its veracity cannot be doubted without proof to the contrary. Therefore, the citations and citation-needed statements around this sentence have been removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.188 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Inuit Peoples in Greenland and Alaska

So, currently, on the last line of the intro section, there exists the sentence "Instead, Canada officially uses the term 'Inuit' to describe the native people living in the country's northernmost sector."

I don't have a problem with this, exactly. It's a true statement and I don't think it really requires a separate citation from the citation in the sentence that precedes it.

However I do kind of think that the facts are relevant that (1) the U.S. government and (2) the State government in Alaska does not use this term as a referential for the Inuit people living there; (3) the Inuit people living there never use it as a self-referential (they use "Inupiaq", "Alaska Native", "Eskimo", or refer by tribe; (4) The government of greenland doesn't use it as a referential for the Inuit people living there, and (5) by far the most common self-referential in Greenland is "Greenlander", with very far distant ones being the particular groupings of people there-- I forget how its all sorted out, but it's very complicated, but the point is the Greenlanders don't use the term as a self-referential either.

I think those facts are relevant and it seems like, truth in reporting here, if you only say what happens in Canada, when it is obvious that in other places not in Canada a different thing happens, I'm not sure that is up to Wikipedia's standards of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS says should be italics, why the change to quotation marks?

I notice recent changes to the article have changed, e.g., Eskimo to "Eskimo" when talking about the word itself, despite MOS:WORDSASWORDS saying: Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something about Wikipedia house style. CC Rwood128. Umimmak (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Umimmak, both italics and quotation marks were being used here and I'm used to seeing the latter, but MOS:WORDSASWORDS does indicate that italics is the preferred form, as you indicate. However, quotation marks are acceptable in some cases: When italics could cause confusion (such as when italics are already being heavily used in the page for some other purpose, e.g., many non-English words and phrases), double quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words. In fact I think I added italics at least once. Given the need to distinguish between words in English and in another language can you accept the changes that I made? Rwood128 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So you want to use italics for words-as-words when they’re non-English and quotation marks for words-as-words when they’re English? I guess we can see what other editors say, but I personally don’t think there’s much confusion here, and in general I fear quotation marks might be read as scare quotes, but I don’t feel super strongly about the issue, just curious why the changes were made. Umimmak (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow Wiki MOS and Chicago style; words as words are italics regardless of language. When non-English words are proper nouns they don't need to be italicized normally, so there is no confusion in italicizing non-English words as words. When non-English words are translated into English, those phrases appear in quotation marks (they are translations, not words as words). Ahalenia (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

The use of double quotation marks seems common in these cases on Wikipedia. Eskimo is in quotation marks in the Inuit article and "Native Americans" in the article Native Americans in the United States. Another example taken from Wales: "The English words "Wales" and "Welsh" derive from the same Old English root (singular Wealh, plural Wēalas), a descendant of Proto-Germanic *Walhaz, which was itself derived from the name of the Gaulish people known to the Romans as Volcae". Rwood128 (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Umimmak already provided the style guide link :: MOS:WORDSASWORDS. It was correct; you, for whatever reason, changed it. You can find examples throughout Wikipedia of every style imaginable due to the many authors from many countries and varying knowledge of grammar and punctuation. Ahalenia (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

I agree that inconsistencies in usage on Wikipedia is no defence. However, the two different styles were used here prior to my edit. I changed things because I was used to seeing, and using, the double punctuation mark style. But if it offends please revert, though that will also require fixing the use of double quotation marks that were already here before my edit (see below). Sorry, but I only thought I was tidying the article with minor copy edits. I see no point in my restoring the earlier flawed version. At least I created a consistent style and one that is included within the guidelines, as noted earlier.

Before my edits:

Etymologically speaking, there exists a scientific consensus that the word Eskimo comes from the Innu-aimun (Montagnais) word ayas̆kimew meaning "a person who laces a snowshoe" and is related to "husky" (a breed of dog), and it does not have a pejorative meaning in origin.

In Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" is predominantly seen as offensive or "non-preferred", and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit" or terms specific to a particular group or community. It comes from a Central Algonquian language known as Ojibwe and was imposed onto Indigenous peoples by colonizers. This has resulted in a trend whereby some Canadians and Americans believe that they should not use the word "Eskimo", and use the classifier and typical Canadian word "Inuit" instead, even for Yupik (non-Inuit) people." Rwood128 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

@Rwood128: Please use {{reflist-talk}} when introducing footnotes into the talk page. Umimmak (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Why I Added Central Algonquian Line

While this definition of "eskimo" has much historical truth behind it, I feel it is lacking emphasis on the origin of the name. According to Merrell in “Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians and American Indians," Indigenous peoples have unique histories, languages, and cultures. It is wrong to not include its relationship to the Ojibwe peoples. Therefore, I added a line and hopefully will be able to add more in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilentja (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Racial slur?

I was most surprised to see this word still being used as I had presumed that it was as out dated as Red Indian, and as offensive. Though I had heard that an indigenous tribe in Alaska preferred the term. The Canadian CFL football team the Edmonton Eskimos recently changed their name the Edmonton Football Team and the Washington Redskins have become the Washington Football Team. Lawrence Kaplan of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks has commented on this topic: "Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?. I will therefore try and modernize the article and fix this anomaly. Rwood128 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Inuit#Nomenclature; Circumpolar peoples. Rwood128 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A quick survey suggests that this article also duplicates Inuit to a great extent. So, perhaps, a merge rather than name change is called for? Rwood128 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC) The significant difference between the number of readers who view these two articles, seems to reinforce my comment on the dated nature of the use of the word Eskimo. Rwood128 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a merge, the Yupik people would not be included in an article about the Inuit, but are covered here. I don't know how popular this idea would be but I think it might be useful to have an article just discussing the word Eskimo, its controversy, views about its uses, etc., and then another article about the Inuit–Yupik peoples -- where there would be relevant WP:SUMMARY sections summarizing Inuit and Yupik. Consider how Names of the Romani people is split from Romani people or Slavs (ethnonym) is split from Slavs. Umimmak (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I realise the difficulty in finding an alternative title because the word Inuit doesn't include tribes in Alaska and Russia, though these peoples are members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council – what linguistic alternative was there to this obvious compromise? Are the Yupik still happy with being described as Eskimos? Hasn't the American government stopped using the word? Another possible alternative is the cumbersome Inuit, Yupik, Chukchi and related peoples. This is more than a controversy; the term Eskimo has been rejected as racist by most indigenous people. Rwood128 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica: "Despite that finding, the name Eskimo—widely used in Alaska—is nevertheless considered by some to be offensive." Does this mean that Alaskans are insensitive, or that the indigenous peoples of Alaska prefer it? The sentence is ambiguous.

OED indicates that it is still used by anthropologists, linguists, etc. But what is the 2020 view in these fields. Rwood128 (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

People use it in Alaska, including as a (proud) self-referential. But that doesn't mean everyone likes it. It's quite possible for some people to really dislike being referred to in a particular way and for other quite similar folks to not mind it or even to like it very much. It's also possible to use a word that is not fundamentally hostile in an offensive way. A person can get pretty confused if s/he tries to define things like this in absolute ways.

69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And the Canadian Encyclopaedia:

"The word Eskimo is an offensive term that has been used historically to describe the Inuit throughout their homeland, Inuit Nunangat, in the arctic regions of Alaska, Greenland and Canada, as well as the Yupik of Alaska and northeastern Russia, and the Inupiat of Alaska. Considered derogatory in Canada, the term was once used extensively in popular culture and by researchers, writers and the general public throughout the world (my emphasis). Rwood128 (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The above is not an unbiased source on this topic. Quite to the contrary-- it is no kind of an authority at all. Canadian is not a language, and this is not a 'Canadian' topic. English is a language, and this is an English encyclopedia. That might seem insensitive, but think about it: of course, you will not see the word "Eskimo" in a serious Yupik dictionary. But not everyone speaks Yupik, and until we all are walking around with universal translators, people having an imperfect means to express their thoughts is something we're going to have to deal with.

English, in this context, is not a language owned by Anglo-Saxons. It is a global language, and the term "Eskimo" is in fact still used, not in a negative way, in many languages throughout the world. But more to the point is the fundamental lack of an available simple/logical term to replace it. And, fundamental to that lack, even if there were a perfect term that all reasonable stakeholders had already agreed on, it isn't a given that Wikipedia as a platform would have the right or the responsibilty or the ability to evangelize effectively for that perfect term, which, again, does not exist.

The idea that all Eskimo people would all like to be identified and referred to as "Inuit" (which, intentionally or not, is being implicit throughout this entire discussion) is not only wildly inaccurate, it is deeply insensitive, and that kind of reality editing has led to further marginalization of already marginalized people-- the Yupik and the Aleut*-- in obvious and rather brutal ways, actually. You may indeed be able to find some guy who identifies as French who does not want to be called European, and I'd agree that you should not call him European, but to equate that to telling the whole world, French people included, that French people should not be called European, but should instead be called Italian, isn't merely going overboard on being politically correct, it's a direct act of marginalization, intentional or not, perpetrated against French people.

• The Yupik and Inuit peoples are the closest cultural and historical-genetic relatives of the Aleut people, and the Aleuts are highly relevant to this discussion, but the Aleut culture and language are different enough that they are generally not called "Eskimo".

69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that I may have misunderstood you comment Umimmak. Are you suggesting that the existing Eskimo article be replaced with one titled Inuit–Yupik peoples, plus a new one on the controversy? Also are you able to offer any clarification on the current situation in Alaska? With regard to the Romani people, I presume that you are referring to the slur gypsy? Rwood128 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Rwood128 & Umimmak. Before anything is moved/merged from this and other articles I think a discussion of the direction is needed. What articles should exist and their names? What should be contained within the articles? I think that an Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rwood128: yeah that was my intention; this article has some like 20 paragraphs about the word "Eskimo", its etymology, connotations, use in various fields, replacement terms, the ICC resolution, etc. I think this is all useful information to have, but this article should primarily be about the Yupik and Inuit (and Sirenik) peoples (and languages in summary style with information in Eskimo–Aleut languages, which might also warrant a rename). As CambridgeBayWeather notes though, picking an agreed upon name for this group is something that needs to be figured out, but I just figured it'd be worth seeing if anyone else thought it made sense to separate out discussion for the word "Eskimo" and for the actual peoples. I'm more familiar with linguistic literature compared to say, anthropological, sociological, or archaeological literature, so I can only that impressionistically in recent years I'm seeing more and more use of "Inuit–Yupik languages" (and to a lesser extent "Yupik–Inuit languages") and less use of "Eskimo languages"; but as this is an article about the peoples and not the languages I'm not sure if that's relevant.

I know many Inuit, particularly in Canada, view the word "Eskimo" as a slur so ideally I would like it if Wikipedia's voice only mentioned and didn't use the word "Eskimo", but I know that Wikipedia inherently is slow and has to follow consensus in the field. However even if there is not consensus to change the name of this article, I still think it might be worth considering splitting up the discussion about the word itself into a separate article (e.g., Eskimo (slur), Eskimo (ethnonym), or even Eskimo (word)) and then leave Eskimo to be about the peoples with a brief explanation in summary style about names for the peoples. I agree that definitely more discussion is needed, but wanted to see if anyone else thought just splitting out discussion of the word from discussion from the people (as has been done for other groups where the word itself is notable in an encyclopedic context, see Category:Ethnonyms and Category:Ethnic and religious slurs) was an idea worth pursuing. Umimmak (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Umimmak and your suggestion, CambridgeBayWeather, sounds good. Moving the discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment is perfectly acceptable to me. Perhaps you can do this. We do, however, have a consensus for changing the name. Rwood128 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The RFC would be here in a new section. At the moment we don't have a consensus to change the name. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's fine CambridgeBayWeather. Do you have any ideas for a possible new name that might help focus the discussion. Rwood128 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No I don't that's why the RFC. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I now better understand, CambridgeBayWeather, thanks. Can you set things in motion, as you understand these matters better than me. Rwood128 (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Also you and Umimmak appear to live in the far north and have a deep interest in these matters, whereas I'm an outsider who accidentally strayed into this article (I'm in St John's, NL). Rwood128 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather than an RFC I decided to ask at all the projects listed above to come and comment. I also read through the archives. This has been discussed quite a bit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Circumpolar peoples ...move data to summary sections of modern named articles with the term Eskimo covered at lenght in an "Etymology" section.--Moxy 🍁 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This really doesn't seem ideal to me, circumpolar peoples refers to such a disparate set of peoples, and given the wealth of literature addressing the group that's specifically Inuit–Yupik(–Sirenik), it seems that that's still a notable topic for a Wikipedia article. Plus discussion about the word "Eskimo" is more than just its etymology, it's about its connotations, replacements, campaigns, history of its usage, how views and usages vary across locations and fields, etc. Umimmak (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm failing to see how your attempt at something akin to cancel culture should apply here, given that people still liberally throw around the Jimmy Wales quote about "the sum of all human knowledge". The sum of all human knowledge ≠ whatever topics people are choosing to recognize today and nothing else. There's already a bad stink of that all throughout the encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I was most interested to find that the word nigger is still used on Wikipedia (I only hear or see the "N-word" used). This article provides some useful guidance as to how we might proceed here. Wish I had seen this earlier. I've also noticed the existence of these two articles: List of ethnic slurs and List of religious slurs. Rwood128 (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Another relevant link: Native American name controversy#"Eskimo". I will check further on the current situation in Alaska. Rwood128 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No one's trying to remove any knowledge or cancel anything, the issue is just if we want to separate out discussion for the word and the people and if we want to rename the article so that Wikipedia isn't using a word many consider to be a slur (as opposed to just discussing this word). Umimmak (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo is not the n— word, and the term conveys a concept of a group of peoples (Inuit, Yupiit, and others) that doesn't yet have a perfect replacement term accepted in literature. Perhaps consider it like the term negro—awkward and definitely not preferred but still in usage, for instance in the United Negro College Fund. Changing this Eskimo article will be a process over time: of explaining the use of the term and redirecting readers to the relevant ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and other articles, while also having a section explaining the term itself. Details about Inuit, Yupiit, etc. should be minimized here with emphasis being on links to the specific articles. Discussion of the term itself here can grow. Ahalenia (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

I definitely think that the main point about the subject "Eskimo" is that it is an outdated and offensive term that nonetheless has historically conveyed actual information (by somewhat tenuously lumping distinct peoples together). The main points to explore, then, are the origin and meaning of the term, why it is offensive/unproductive, how its use has evolved, and who, exactly, is academically and/or colloquially referred to under this label. The focus should be etymological (of course with explanation as to why distinct peoples were put under this label) with all substantive discussion of peoples, languages, etc. redirected to the appropriate article specific to that topic. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wild lack of understanding in that last comment of the fundamentals not just of anthropology but of culture, and how cultures and peoples become marginalized. That is, for example, someone, e.g. Pliny, makes something up derived from a basis of zero actual reality, and then tries to shove it down the throat of any rational discussion, but in a rational sounding way.69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This issue comes up repeatedly. I think it is most analogous to the use of the word gypsy as applied to the Romani people—where an ethnic slur is used against several groups who are somewhat distinct from one another. I think the solution is to focus this article on the word, and to move the ethnic and cultural content to the Inuit and Yupiit articles, or to the Eskimo-Aleut languages article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

US and Canadian usage may differ. For instance in Canada the use of the terms "Indian" and "Mative" are discouraged and may be considered offensive, even though it still exists legally with the "Indian Act" and the legal term "status Indian" but otherwise we use First Nations or when referring to then, Inuit and Metis collectively, "Indigenous", which has replaced "Aboriginal" in recent years though the latter term is still used in legal writing. In the US though, "Indian" or "American Indian" is still the most commonly used term. Sowny (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo is still widely used in Alaska by even some Inuit and Yupik peoples to refer to themselves. I seriously doubt they are going about their lives concerned what a bunch of outsiders think one way or the other. Change it or don't, but there are a lot who simply laugh at the way other people walk around trying to address them, "Native American, "American Indian", "Indigenous people". Is it "eskimo or not eskimo"? How about "Native Indian Indigenous American Cultural People of the Western Hemisphere"? I honestly think people need to take a breath and chill out. If a word describing your cultural heritage offends you then let everyone know so they can make sure not to refer to you by that word.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A new article for the word

I am reluctant to intervene further, but on 13 september Umimmak proposed the following: "It might be worth considering splitting up the discussion about the word itself into a separate article (e.g., Eskimo (slur), Eskimo (ethnonym), or even Eskimo (word)) and then leave Eskimo to be about the peoples with a brief explanation in summary style about names for the peoples".

Is this proposal acceptable? Yes or no?

If there is a consensus, we could then consider, separately, the appropriate name for each article. Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean, no, not really. Wikipedia's definition (quite reasonable, I think!) of an ethnic slur is "ethnophaulism". The oxford English dictionary defines 'ethnophaulism' as "A contemptuous expression for (a member of) a people or ethnic group; an expression containing a disparaging allusion to another people or ethnic group." That is not accurate about "Eskimo", and there is frankly limited evidence that it has ever been true of the word in any remotely broad set of times or places. So, while Eskimo may be offensive to some people, or even many people, in some or even all contexts, it is not a slur. It is a non-specific and rather awkward term, for those of us who have a well-developed understanding of the "full equation". But there isn't a simple substitute for the word which is accurate, and it's not a slur, it's not a "pejorative term", and it can't be defined on Wikipedia into being a slur, because to do so would not be encycopedic of reality, it would be legislating reality, and heavily so. 69.178.53.217 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit War Over "Indigenous" Capitalization

So, I noticed an edit war has been going on over the capitalization of "I/indigenous" in the introduction to this article. I do not have a strong opinion on the question one way or the other, but I believe I can shed some light on it. The Chicago Manual of Style and many other sources, including conversations internal to Wikipedia, are actually quite diplomatic on this subject, offering an array of viewpoints on whether the word should be capitalized and when it is appropriate to do so. "Indigenous", in the place where there was an edit war over it, is not being used as an adjective, it is being used as a word which is included in a way of talking about a people or group of people. Therefore, most sources, both contemporary and merely recent, feel that the word in this context should be capitalized, and there are actually a host of different reasons for this. Thereby, those editing the article in favor of the status quo may in fact have been correct in the given instance that they were arguing. I believe that the argumentative style, however, and the rationality given for repeatedly reverting the edit, could have been better.

From the same sources above, the use of the uncapitalized word "indigenous" is not actually wrong or incorrect when applied to people. Although the word obviously is a bit imprecise, that is not grounds for its censorship or suppression. For example, in one instance later in the introduction of the current article, indigenous is is used or should be used as an adjective, not as a descriptor of a people or peoples, but as a descriptor of people, most sources, including the United Nations, which is quite pertinent to the argument if you'll read up a bit, seem to favor using the lowercase version of the word "indigenous". It cannot automatically be judged a lack of respect Indigenous Peoples or Indigenous Persons, nor non-stylistic, to simply use an English word (indigenous) to describe any set of humans, indigenous or otherwise. That's not how it works. It's clearly a logical fallacy (argument of the beard / sorites paradox) to say that just because the term indigenous is non-descript, that it has no meaning or should not be used at all. In this sense there are two very different words being used: "indigenous" and "Indigenous", and to say that there are not is not "correct style", it's suppression of free speech.

The place where indigenous should probably not be capitalized is where it precedes "Alaskans". One speaks of "Indigenous Australians" and "Indigenous Canadians" and "Indigenous North Americans" and "Indigneous Americans" or "Indigenous People of the United States". Nation states, contitents... etc. One rarely, if ever, speaks of "Indigenous Coloradans", for the same reason that one does not speak of "Indigneous People of Detroit". That is, among the Indigenous People living in Detroit, there are probably a lot of people who are very much not indigenous to Detroit. Why shouldn't there be, since Detroit is hardly conceivable as anything but a colonized area, even if you do resepect the land rights of the original owners. Now Alaska is a big and different state, no one will deny that, but there is another reason not to capitalize "Indigenous Alaskans", and that is because it is simply not a correct term.

The correct term is very, very specific and very well known and accepted throughout the region: it is "Alaska Natives". There are very good reasons for this terminology. And, yes, it is captalized. If what is meant is people who were historically in this area etc... then indigenous Alaskans, (lowercase i) is more correct, because it refers to a relatively ancient presence and/or a vague historical region, not a people and/or set of peoples and/or a place that currently has rigid boundaries. The Thule people were latecomers to Alaska, so, yes, we correctly call the Inuit "Indigenous People". But to call the them, by most definitions, "indigenous"-lowercase-i, without implicity or explicit acknowledgement of pre-Thule roots, is like calling the Anglo-Saxon protestants indigenous to Ireland. Good luck with that. But this is true of any application of indigenous-lowercase-i, especially to humans: indigenous is only really accurate when applied in context. If you start using "Indigenous" capitalized in such contexts, it really only muddies the waters. I don't think there's any need to argue this further, and I'm changing the singular instance of "indigenous" where it directly precedes "Alaskans" to lowercase "i". Fatbatsat (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

One article for Canadians and one article for U.S. citizens

If I understand correctly, this is an article made to please U.S. citizens while the Inuit article is made to please Canadians. There is something wrong with that but I can't really get a concise term for it right now. --AlainV (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. Please read the article. Eskimo does not mean the same thing as Inuit. Ahalenia (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

I've read both articles--AlainV (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Some vs. Many Edit War

So, this is a kind of ridiculous thing to have to wade in on, but the correct usage is "many", not some. "Some" is non-descript. Like, "I found some berries in the woods". So, unless there is a clearly countable number of individuals ("few" or "several") or a singular ("Joe Blo") individual, then the correct usage for an encyclopedia is "many". Many does not mean most-- it does not imply a majority-- it simply says there are a lot of people who think this way. Thank you. Fatbatsat (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Stray factoids

I'm cleaning up part of the Nomenclature section, and while this is interesting, it has nothing to do with the paragraph it was placed in:

One of the oldest known Eskimo archaeological sites, dating back to 3,800 years ago, is located in Saglek Bay, Labrador. On Umnak Island in the Aleutian Islands, another site was found and is estimated to be an age of approximately 3,000 years old.

Also, Greenland Inuit definitely don't refer to themselves as "Greenlanders," considering they primarily speak their own languages and Danish. —Ahalenia (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

References

Ummmmm... Yes, yes they definitely do https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php

"Their own languages"-- they speak Greenlandic-- have a word for Greenlander, and it is kalaallit, which means person from Greenland, or to be precise, their word for Greenland is Kalaallit Nunaat-- Land of the Kalaallit. Not complicated. Oddly enough, when they are speaking Danish, they also have a word for Greenlander-- it is grønlænder. Not complicated. 69.178.53.217 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, that statement which you removed already had a separate, independent cited source attached to it.69.178.53.217 (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As the article helpfully explains, Greenlandic Inuit include three current groups: the Kalaallit of west Greenland, who speak Kalaallisut; the Tunumiit of east Greenland, who speak Tunumiit Oraasiat; and the Inughuit of north Greenland, who speak Inuktun. Ahalenia (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia

Current version is much improved. The explanation is not problematic, I just objected to the unexplained removal of well-sourced and relevant material. Thanks for your contribution, and I apologize for the sarcasm above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.53.217 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

See factoid - it means the opposite of what you think. 46.69.62.61 (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

NPR source

Hi, just wanted to point out that this source is really inadequate and outdated, and I personally think people should stop trying to use it to justify edits: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo. Part of the reason stems from the facts which are actually presented in the article are pretty clearly in conflict with the "spin" which the author is taking. It also doesn't offer any kind of citation or justification for any of the most dramatic and controversial statements that it makes. It's a public news article, and I don't see how it can be justified as an encyclopedic source for the subject on which it expounds. Thank you. Fatbatsat (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to spin it. The IPs appear to think that because the "raw meat eater" meaning has been debunked then nobody should be offended by Eskimo. However, the truth is people are offended. Even if it does mean "snowshoe netters" it was still applied by colonialists and used in an offensive and derogatory fashion.

So the 2016 article, Why You Probably Shouldn't Say 'Eskimo', says it was "a derogatory term because it was widely used by racist, non-native colonizers". But you seem to be suggesting, and I could be wrong, that it is no longer seen in that light. By the way multiple articles are cited to "a public news article". That it is does not make it wrong.

This 2020 article form NASA says "“Eskimo” is widely viewed as a colonial term with a racist history, imposed on the indigenous people of Arctic regions.".

Here's an actual Inuk saying "the term is derogatory and symbolizes colonial policies." Edmonton Eskimos must change offensive name, Inuit leader says and even if that is from 2015 he still feels the same way in 2020, 'I will be a little bit more at peace': Inuit leader reflects on report of CFL team changing name.

Even the Edmonton Football Team thinks the same way in 2020, Edmonton of the CFL decides to drop Eskimos, change its name, quote "Critics say the Edmonton team’s name is a derogatory, colonial-era term for Inuit.".

An ice cream maker, Edy's Pie, knows that Eskimo is derogatory, Eskimo Pie to become Edy's Pie in 2021.

Some restaurant in Stillwater, Oklahoma is facing problems because of the name, Eskimo Joe's taking heat over mascot.

While Eskimo is a derogatory term for Inuk is an opinion piece and no use as a source it does point out that organisations outside of the Anglosphere recognise the problems. And provides links, Danish national museum removing outdated term from Arctic exhibits.

So how many sources do we need? If the "facts" in the article conflict with all of the above then the article has it wrong. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those links and information. I'm not sure if I have an adequate direct response, but I'll try.

"But you seem to be suggesting, and I could be wrong, that it is no longer seen in that light."

I just mean that the article wasn't really well researched or correct at the time that it was written, but at the time it was written, there were not a whole lot of conflicting, well-researched sources, as far as I know, which were freely available on the internet for anyone to see.

I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of what you said, except to say that, for me, how many references is not really that important, whereas the quality of references is. The main thing that news articles and blogs show, in my view, is that pop culture has turned against the use of the word. I guess I would add to that several of the articles you linked have to do with naming things in a particular way. Such exploitative branding exemplifies a type and degree of tokenization (some would say cultural appropriation, but that is a different conversation), which we in activist circles would indeed call colonialist behavior. It's precisely because that sort of behavior is reprehensible that it does not make sense to equate it to simple and honest, if arguably unenlightened, usage of an irreplaceable (for the moment) word.

And the problem centers here mostly around the use of the term "derrogatory" or "pejorative". Both of those terms have clear English langauge definitions: either direct intent, or some sort of etymological fundamental *meaning*, neither of which is common in this case, and to show otherwise requires some sort of proof, not just a blunt statement. No proof can be found because the statement, by and large, in general, isn't accurate. From what I have read, there is a very real historic association that the Inuit people of Eastern Canada have with being called "Eskimos" and being treated really, really badly. So I don't think the "colonial"/historical designation in that particular case is inaccurate. It's just that "colonial" is a really non-descript word, and it seems odd that people want to apply that label to the word (again, without proof) and hence, speaking somewhat hyperbolically, to everyone who has ever used the word, including Inuit and Yupik individuals, both in the past and those still using it today. This, too, is a matter of public record.

Sorry, longwinded response, but I hope I'm making some sense here. I will allow that the border between referenced fact and point of view on this subject is not as clear as we'd like. Some way or another though, we have to make the facts acessible to people.

Fatbatsat (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Fatbatsat Been away for a few days. I think that previously the article was correct. However, within the last 10 years (Talk:Eskimo/Archive 2#Racial Slur) there has been a gradual westward drift of Inuit replacing Eskimo. So in 2011 Kaplan wrote this but today that is gone and it now reads like this. This is no longer an Eastern Arctic thing but has extended across all of the North American Arctic. I had removed the word derogatory because it wasn't sourced in the newer reference but was in the old. I'm not trying to say that the word is derogatory or pejorative but that people feel or think it is. And words can be used in a derogatory or pejorative manner and coming from the UK the first that came to mind is frog, List of ethnic slurs . As to colonial it is used by Kaplan and he has long been seen as a reliable source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, I think. That source is... frustrating. Not least because it basically contradicts itself within the text.

Phrasing things like this...

""Inuit" is now the current term in Alaska and across the Arctic, and 'Eskimo' is fading from use. The Inuit Circumpolar Council prefers the term "Inuit" but some other organizations use 'Eskimo'."

...is just really hard to follow and irritating.

What, for example, does "the current term" mean? If it is "the current term", why are "other organizations" still using the word "Eskimo". As for the Inuit Circumpolar Council, we know that they have "preferred" Inuit since the 70's, and people have been basically complaining about their "preferral" ever since.

That source has changed its wording several times quite recently, and in suspicious synch with evolving pop culture and ideas. Whatever the case, it is undeniable that in manifesting such a high frequency of changes, a source undermines *its own* credibilty; expert and scientific review, by its very nature, takes time, and the utility in that source is/was as an expert perspective. Case in point, as for the recent take, apart from tourist-brochure level material, I cannot find any corroborating sources per Alaska. And, there are plenty of sources saying the contrary, both more academic and more populist in nature. Take this source, for example: https://www.alaskan-natives.com/2166/eskimo-inuit-inupiaq-terms-thing/ (you have to read the whole thing, sorry). The main thing that has changed in the last two years is that people who cared about the question in Alaska, and elsewhere, I think, have gotten louder, not that there are more indigenous or indigenous-associated people who care. Not to say that loudness should not be taken into account-- it should. It's just that the facts on this question become ever harder to track down. And increased loudness from one group must sometimes be measured in account of the loudness of other, opposing groups.

OK, enough ranting, you get my point, I hope?

It probably sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but there really is a difference between "colonial", which as you correctly point out Kaplan uses, and "colonialist". Now, both terms are arguably incorrect, but the point, to my mind, is that that kind of statement requires scientific citation. It's a lightly derived term, but does that make it colonial? Or colonialist? This is the English Wikipedia, so does it make sense to title the article in Montagnais, spelling the word in a way that no one has ever heard of and in all probability would not be able to google-search? It's not difficult to get to the root, which comes from the North American continent. Add that to the fact that the *reason* it originally got billed as pejorative *was* definitively due to very much colonialist pseudo-science, the issue is, again, massively frustrating and headache causing.

At the end of the day, I suppose, it's still the case, at least to my mind, that creating the article even in an only slighty unbalanced fashion which undermines the word, undermines knowledge and knowledge aquisition, and thereby undermines the people to whom the word refers. That's probably alright for the dominant group-- the (strictly defined) Inuit, but it still gives the minority-- Yupik and Aleut peoples-- the short shrift. So the risk of that is abhorrent.

The word "Eskimo" is about as useful as the word "African" or "European", which is to say barely useful at all, except in common speech, except that people tend to know a lot more about what it is to be an African or European then they know about what it is to be an Eskimo. So, yes, it's a garbage word. One shouldn't call someone an Eskimo any more than you should call them an African or European, and it's basically just as offensive, meaning that a few people will indeed get ticked off, but a whole lot of people will just kind of look at you funny. But in the case of a group of people who are culturally, ethnically, and territorially so little understood, utility has to be considered.

Follow the flow chart: People know so little about the Eskimos --> They need a place to look up the term--> So, they hit google--> Bam, up pops the Wikipedia article on Eskimo --> bam, they learn about Inuit peoples, Yupik peoples, and Aleut peoples. They will also see that the word is unacceptable to a lot of people, thanks to Kaplan's update. Hopefully, they will then share all of this information with their friends, and not think of individuals as "Eskimos" again and never refer to individual people in that way again. But if the article says the word is derrogatory, that same person is quite likely to simply be confused, simply put because, well, a word which has no substitute *cannnot* be derogatory or pejorative, because a such word uniquely represents a concept, and therefore cannot fundamentally be a detraction, a disrespectful attitude, nor an expression of contempt. People, on a very fundamental level, are logical beings, and understand this.

Now, it's possible, even likely, that a different word will eventually be used for the same thing, but as sources have pointed out, right now, at this moment in time, there is no synonym. And, if there is a substitute word a few decades down the road, it seems pretty unlikely that it will be "Inuit", because anyone who knows anything about the subject, yourself included, knows that that word already possesses a completely different meaning.

Fatbatsat (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

From this whole wall of text, nothing, and I mean nothing, has come of it, no offense to those involved. This argument brings nothing to the table and neither does the supposed solutions because, and I apologize if any of you belong to the Iñupiat or Yup’ik communities (If you live in North Central Alaska let me know, maybe we can meet up for a talk), most of you don't know what it's like to live in these conditions. Trust me when I say that the majority of Inuit and Yupik peoples are not sitting around worried about what UK, American or Canadian people call them or refer to them as. If you went to them and asked then more might would speak up but that's just a product of the moment. The second you leave they go back to their lives of trying to survive much like most of us in the Arctic regions do regardless of ethnicity and give your question not another thought. Maybe the word is derogatory to select groups but most Yup’ik and Iñupiaq living in small villages/towns in Alaska still don't see it that way because they really don't care. It doesn't help them catch one more fish or harvest one more caribou. It doesn't put food on the table and it doesn't improve their lives in any way. Even here on Wikipedia there is no consensus. It's just like the Native American vs. American Indian discussions. A lot of tribal people and tribes themselves utilize the term "Indian" in their official tribal name. That was a name they gave themselves. Who are we to tell them that they are wrong? Does it improve their lives in any way? No. It's a personal thing. I think it's okay to mention that the word can be considered offensive and I would even say to add locations where it may not be acceptable to use it (like Canada) but I think it is just as wrong to blanket entire societies and cultures as believing something in particular when it simply is not true. It's like basing broad policy on a sample straw poll. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I've lived in the Arctic for about 47 years. The thing is that it does not matter what you or I say. All that matters is what the reliable sources say. I know that some indigenous Canadians and Alaskans don't mind being called Eskimo but finding reliable sources, not Facebook or the comments section on Nunatsiaq News, is near impossible. There are a lot of Inuit in Canada who do object strongly to being called Eskimo. In part that is why we have Native American name controversy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Very true and many of the sources for Yupi'ik and Iñupiat peoples here in Alaska still refer to themselves as Eskimo people. I believe it does depend on the sources. Its the same with American Indian vs Native American. Many here in the US decided to call themselves American Indians rather than Native American. I prefer to associate with local tribal names rather than generalized group names. I think, if the source calls them Eskimo then it should be recorded as such, and if the source calls them something else then use that. I have found plenty of sources where they are called Eskimo, I don't Facebook, and we shouldn't be changing that where it is sourced. The only exception I think we should make is on BLP's where we can source that the individual objected to the use of the word to describe themselves. Likewise, if they strongly associated with the word and objected to alternatives then it should most definitely be used. --ARoseWolf 17:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOVN

Due to concerns about potential sockpuppetry, I've opened a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Eskimo. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hemiauchenia. I am in no way an SPA so I would ask that you not refer to me as one.

Your edit removed some important information. It is a good idea to indicate where they live and I'm not sure why you thought that it, along with the sources, should be removed. You also created a couple of WP:Easter eggs. Linking circumpolar peoples as "circumpolar region" and hiding Innu-aimun as the old French colonial Montagnais is not helping the readers.

As to this being the consensus version can, along with Fatbatsat and others, be discussed here. Which is what should have happened. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fatbatsat was the SPA being referred to, not you. I did not intend to undo your edits, they were just caught in the rollback. My apologies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't manage to write in here earlier, folks, it's been a busy week. However, Hemiauchenia, in spite of much, um, flailing...? ...and edit-warring, and name-calling, it still seems like to me that you haven't tried very hard to justify your edits. Would you care to try to do that here rather than continuing toxic dialogue? If you have a point to make, I'm more that willing to listen to it, as is I'm sure everyone following this article and its Talk page. But otherwise, the article lead should probably stay as it previously was, before you started making edits that anyone informed on the matter, including you yourself at this point, can now agree were incorrect. I am assuming you are acting in good faith. Your hostile conduct isn't really helping build the article-- all I have asked for is reasoned dialogue before making changes, which anyone who is interested in seeing the entry developed (and not sabotaged) should also request and expect. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for your time.

Fatbatsat (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Article is full-protected

I have reverted back to the version of 12 October (which seems to be the approximate beginning of the edit warring) and full-protected this article for 10 days. Do not disrupt the stability of an article over a content dispute. Work it out on the talk page. If an agreement is reached prior the protection expiration, ping me and I can unprotect it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks, much appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Agreed, thank you. Fatbatsat (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article: Eskimo → Inuit-Yupik peoples

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose renaming the article to Inuit-Yupik peoples, with Eskimo redirecting to that page. The term "Inuit-Yupik peoples" is technically correct, is a based on endonyms rather than an exonym. The term "Eskimo" is an exonym. Its use in Alaska is declining. In Canada it is considered a racial slur. Dowobeha (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposed. As per Wikipedia:Article titles Eskimo is far more common than Inuit-Yupik peoples . On top of that you would have an article called Inuit-Yupik peoples but would use Eskimo more in the body of the article than Inuit-Yupik. It would also be confusing as there is already two articles about Inuit and Yupik peoples. Really what should have been done was brought up at Talk:Eskimo/Archive 4#Racial slur?. This should be about the word, similar to Spic, rather than a duplication of two other article about people. Dowobeha I moved this to the bottom as it was going to get missed at the top. Also it might have been better to have done a proper move request discussion. See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposed. The name Eskimo is "not derogatory" and is charming for Alaskan Natives. --Kmoksy (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That's blatantly wrong, many people do find the term "Eskimo" offensive. Do you have any source for the claim that the term is charming for Alaskan Natives? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] Did you read Eskimo#Etymology or Inuit#Nomenclature and looked at the sources? There are several there that state the word is a slur and derogatory. I've never heard it called "charming". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposed Eskimo is still used by academia (see google scholar) and many current reliable references, most likely because there is no other recognized name for this grouping. Even if the polar indigenous peoples could agree that they did not like the term, we should not care for page title as long as it is the common name in English. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or censor knowledge WP:NOTCENSORED. We are here to be WP:NEUTRAL. Inuit-Yupik would also be original research WP:SYNTHESIS as no? reliable references use it as an ethnic grouping. Or are these rules only for Muslims and Latter Day Saints etc not who ever we happen to be thinking about at any one time. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Dowobeha: this should probably have been done using the templates at WP:Requested moves as that would help make it clearer and get a wider consensus on what's going on. That said, I find the arguments above pretty atrocious - essentially boiling down to "we should keep using this title which has been identified as a slur because some people still use it" with no semblance that maybe policies which lead to that conclusion are perpetuating the problem more than staying neutral on it. I can only say that I'm relieved wikipedia wasn't around during the Civil Rights era...

For what it's worth, I'd probably support merging the content of this page into other equivalent articles, such as Circumpolar peoples which seems roughly analogous with the addition of Russian groups or the articles of the Inuit and Yupik people individually. Inspiration could probably be taken from Romani people or African Americans, both of which stay away from more problematic terms. Turnagra (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I really don't like using my time fighting for racial slurs on the internet. But I do spend my time talking with editors who think black people are inferior, climate change is not real, if race isn't real then racism can't be, that China is a dictatorial ethnostate committing genocide, that Nazi's are socialist, some editors even voted for Bernie Sanders (don't question my stream of consciousness). How do we all work together; by trying to represent reliable references. You are saying that modern academic texts should not be considered because they hurt peoples feeling (trivialisation unintended). Think about any religious scientific claim and how that would work. If Wikipedia was around in another time it would and should reflect the attitudes of the reliable references from that time. If neutrality has the exception of "as long as you don't hurt peoples feelings", then it is meaningless. I hate this side effect, I don't like pissing off ~500 million Muslims with our images of Mohamad, but trying for impartial knowledge is more important.

As an aside I like the idea of using Circumpolar peoples, we may still need a page for the E word as we do for other racial slurs, but it would refer to it as such. In which case this page should become a disambiguation page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed. WP:COMMONNAME is the only guideline that matters for naming this article. The nominator's rationale is faulty. The fact that the term is declining in Alaska is irrelevant. Once it has declined to be uncommon worldwide, then we can consider a rename. Also the fact that some Canadians consider it an ethnic slur is irrelevant to our article naming guidelines. As Dushan Jugum stated above, our purpose here isn't censorship or righting wrongs. And finally, as Google ngram clearly shows, the term "Eskimo" is declining but the term "Inuit-Yupik" barely even registers in published sources. Therefore the proposal is dead on arrival as a clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Given that you are the admin who locked the page, do you not consider this a violation of WP:INVOLVED? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is important to air grievances. But, I have just seen one of these discussions take over a thread and have to be hidden, so could you take this to the editors talk page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Brain freeze on my part there. When I saw this discussion appear on my watchlist page, I had forgotten I protected it a day earlier. I blame it on a sleepless night. I wasn't WP:INVOLVED then (I recall I was responding to a request at WP:RFPP), but I guess my comment above changes my involvement. I can cancel the protection if people feel that this screw-up warrants it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Opposed. .. already two articles about Inuit and Yupik peoples. But mainly for its use within historical context/ research.... history books, scholarly publications and catalogues published before 1980/1990 are, naturally, filled with the word. Educate by explaining the past not by omission = Wikipedia:Advocacy.Moxy- 06:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If only it were that easy, Google scholar shows it being used as a noun as much as Inuit since 2017. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with your point - but if that's the goal, wouldn't it be better to have the article reflect that instead of using it as an article about the people? Turnagra (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am very keen to see how we might get this duality across in the first sentence of the page, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Future directions. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question of scope

Questions of whether the name "Eskimo" is offensive aside. Another big question I have is scope. We already have articles on the two peoples known by that name, the Inuit and the Yupik peoples. My question is, what should this article try to cover, if it is to avoid simply duplicating the material from the other two pages? Indeed, the "Inuit" article is substantially more popular than this one, averaging around 2,500 views per day, compared to Eskimo, which averages around 1,300 per day (excluding spikes), see [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2019-08-29&end=2021-10-23&pages=Inuit%7CEskimo Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely an interesting one - I think it's also worth noting Circumpolar peoples in there too, since it seems that this current article sits somewhere between that and the individual articles of Inuit / Yupik that you mentioned above. Inuit and Yupik both cover material relating to their specific groups, while Circumpolar peoples can cover the various indigenous groups in the region at a higher level (including the Inuit Circumpolar Council). If I'm looking at this article as it stands, sections 3, 5, 6, and 7 all seem to be duplicates of other articles or could be used to expand other articles. Section 4 is one line and also has another, bigger article which it links to. This would leave the History and Nomenclature sections, which could probably serve to repurpose the article to be more about the term than what it refers to. Turnagra (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

A disambiguation page for Eskimo with the redirects Eskimo (term), Circumpolar peoples, Inuit, etc. is one idea. Happy with making the page about the term (not the topic) without disambiguation page, as long as first sentence doubles as that disambiguation. I have one sticking point, there are too many modern academic articles that use Eskimo where it is not obvious (to a non-expert/me) which subgroup they are referring to. My best bet would be we fold that into Circumpolar Peoples somehow. Just out of interest there is a similar problematic overlap in Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal Australians. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed a bit at Talk:Eskimo/Archive 4#Racial slur? without much of a conclusion. My feeling is that this page should be about the term in a similar fashion to other derogratory words such as Spic. We already have Eskimo (disambiguation) so there is no need to to make this one or rename it to Eskimo (term). I would suggest that the lead be rewritten. History section is removed. Nomenclature and subsections stay. Languages stay but reduced and remove the "words for snow" subsection. Everything below that goes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Forget what I said about disambiguation we don't want to get into that mess (Eskimo (disambiguation)), Eskimo (term) all good, but it could be done without the hassle of page move. Don't know why we would keep language section, either it is for the term or it is not. Eskimo–Aleut family is something quite different. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Language because Eskimo-Aleut languages are indeed releated to the term. There would be no need for a long section on the actual languages but about the useage of the term. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good call. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that Nomenclature is the most essential section, but I'd argue for retaining both the History and Languages sections as well. (Though, like CambridgeBayWeather mentions, Languages could definitely stand to be shortened.) Sections 5 through 7 could potentially be useful if we pare them down to a list-based structure, like we currently see on Circumpolar peoples - there's a fairly specific set of groups that tends to be described with the "Eskimo" moniker, and it could be useful to enumerate them. The "Diet" section, however, definitely needs to go. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Moxy's edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am concerned by Moxy's massive edits to the article, many which do not reflect general scholarly consensus. For example in the "History" section the sentence A distinct Eurasiatic languages lineage exists for Siberian Yupik people and the North American speakers of the Eskimo-Aleut language group, who have up to 43% of their DNA in common with an ancient people or set of ancient peoples of otherwise unknown origin is incoherent gibberish, and is conflating genetics with linguistics, including the concept of the Eurasiatic languages, a fringe theory that is not supported by the majority of historical linguists. (I know that @Austronesier: has a huge bugbear about conflating linguistics and genetics). Moxy also appears to be confused by the term Paleo-Eskimo, which refers to prehistoric archaeological cultures of the North American arctic prior to the arrival of the modern Inuit and Yupik. It is widely beleived that the arrival of the modern Eskimo-Aleut speaking peoples into the North American arctic, archaeologically known as the Thule people, was relatively recent, and previous Paleo-Eskimo groups are unrelated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Did not write A distinct Eurasiatic languages lineage exists for Siberian Yupik people and the North American speakers of the Eskimo-Aleut language group, who have up to 43% of their DNA in common with an ancient people or set of ancient peoples of otherwise unknown origin....only linked Eurasiatic over Asia - that we can talk about. Nor did i add anything about Paleo-Eskimo the changes. Could you provide sources for your statements and provide diffs you disagree with. To be clear you disagree with "earliest migrants into the northern extremes of North America and Greenland derived from later migrant populations than those who penetrated farther south in the Americas"? and the addition of sources as requested ?--Moxy- 22:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Source for later https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31168094/

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.