Talk:Inuit/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Inuit Cabinet Members

I changed the First Inuk Cabinet Member section to include two previous Inuit who had lesser profile cabinet posts. -- (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


The Inuits learn how people learn today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, traditional knowledge varies from region to region, from tribe to tribe, and from family to family. There are some knowledge that is absent from far away tribes that is available to central region, and vice versa. The knowledge is usually acquired by experience, and we don't hearsay or gossip, because what is the point without not having to see it firsthand?

There is an ancient tale of a bright rock falling from the sky, and other what westerners would probably consider as stories and legends, but we don't talk nonsense, and lie, but we tell the truth right to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talkcontribs) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Series Sidebar

Started this "Ethnic Series sidebar template" to bring together some of the main topics related to the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that the articles stand alone and do not overlap each other in content. What is your opinion? SriMesh | talk 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE It has been added to the following articles, PLEASE ADD IT TO new and old articles about the topic.. {{Indigenous Peoples of Canada}}

My opinion has been posted over at Template talk:Indigenous Peoples of Canada. To sum it up, it's very poorly designed and not aesthetically easy on the eyes. - Io Katai (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Template has been redone Collapse it version now

Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Inter tribe relations

Inuit did not fight the Tuniit, as most western mindset people might assume. Inuit were the friends of Tuniit. Tuniit died soley from the sicknessess that the european explorers brought. "Qiqiqtaajuk" and "Arvia juaq" parks are the proof of this sickness that came. Inuit too, suffered unsurmountable predicaments that almost led them to become extinct, like the Tuniit. Inuit are non violent people, unless "Push me and I'll push you back" kind of attitude.

There is also a one fairly unknown warfare in the Central region, but is very well known to the local Inuit. The arrow heads that the Indians used were useless to Inuit, so they just put them in a cave in our area. The big hill that the Inuit and Indians fought around became "A place where we laugh" (Iglarvik) because both Indian tribes and Inuit tribes did not expect each other tribes to see, while trying to attack each other, so the Indians realized that they could not beat the Inuit, we became cousins and apologized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some community members that came from this or that family, and what this means, I am theorizing, that Saqqamiut, Tuniit, Tariurmiut, Ahialmiut, and others are now living together without fighting, and much can be learnt by studying some families that have some traits visible, like baldness, or rounded and strong, etc., and learn that they are what they're really are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talkcontribs) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From Asia?

They look asian to me, arent they immigrated from Asia some time trough history? (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes see -->Indigenous Amerindian genetics...Moxy (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Some of the poor Inuit brought to England by Frobisher were painted by various Dutch and Flemish artists and by John White (colonist and artist). See: Christian Feest, ed. Indians and Europe and Alden T. Vaughan, Transatlantic Encounters`.--Radh (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Various Tribes of the Inuit

There are various tribes living on different areas. For example, one tribe might excercise eating seals, and therefore, knows more about the ambience of seals, while the other, knows more about the caribou, and all the habits of caribou.

Eating sea mammals tend to make people more positive, seems like. The tribes that lived far from the coastal communities will tend to have more suicides, murders, and other fatal clashes, that are negative to all.

Sea mammals have vitamin D, which is also on the sunrays. There are various tribes excesicing various ways of life. There are tribes which have better relations and there are other tribes which they label to keep away. Tribes which benefit both sides tend to have more peaceful resolutions, while only one tribe which will benefit, there'll be more hard times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talkcontribs) 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Genetic information

How was the lineage of genes tested, and which company tested the genes. How are the genes in Inuit differ then to that of Tuniit, or the Indians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talkcontribs) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You might find part of you question answered over at Sadlermiut#Origins (briefly, Thule = haplogroup A, Dorset = haplogroup D). Native American populations are variably A, B, C, D and X and represent multiple waves of migration. See Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for more details. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Universe

As with all the peoples of the earth, Inuit have their own version of knowledge, which might fall under science fiction and religion. We always have known that there are people watching us from above. The poor predecessors of us, go to that place to wait, and above all, there is one supreme being, benevolent and who rewards the good and punishes the bad. It all ties with LIFESTYLES, heh heh heh, lifestyles! Like the golden rule, this invisible being will gather everyone up once the natural cycles are complete. 4 seasons, are one of the cycles. Blooming, are the results of these times, and the sign for the imminent halt of natural cycles will become more chaotic, like the normal pattern of weather will change.

Belief, is like a magnet, being able to relocate objects, levitating to get away from the snowdrift, telekonesis, were favorites used by the individuals who can manuver these incantations, to make life better. Modernization and Industrial revolution is the main reason why our knowledge is disappearing, and fewer and fewer people knowing to practice these to pass their knowledge to the new generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Google search results not updated

I would just like to point out that when one googles Inuit, the wiki page begins "The Inuit' dick suckers indigenous peoples" How can we fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The google web crawler must have downloaded the page at a time when it had just been vandalised. This sort of thing is usually removed in seconds or minutes, but unless we go to pending revisions for all pages it cannot be avioded altogether.--Charles (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Migration from Asia

I recently saw a documentary by Niobe Thompson about the supposed migration of the Thule People from the Chukchi peninsula to Alaska about 800 years ago. The film is streamable only in Canada, not where I live.

CBC - the Nature of Things / Inuit Odyssey:

He says the people there suffered what they called a technology trap when they forgot how to make stone tools since they started using iron tools. Mongolian wars prevented the supply of iron, forcing them to jump in their boats and migrate to Alaska. Then they forced out the local Dorset people from the best hunting sites, then spread East very quickly, reaching Greenland when it was still occupied by Vikings.

The Inuit and Thule people articles merely mention that the Thule were forerunners of the Inuit who "appeared" in Alaska about 800 years ago. If the theory is correct, such a late migration from Asia to the New World is interesting. Is this theory accepted or not? There must be much linguistic, cultural, and genetic evidence that would point one way or the other. Coldipa (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

yes it is pls see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for more info.Moxy (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Is it correct to call the Yupik Eskimos of Russia/Western Alaska "Inuit"? (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


The article appears to apologize in a couple of places for there being no "replacement" term for Eskimo in Alaska. Since Alaskan Eskimos do not consider the term pejorative and readily identify themselves as Eskimos, this apology seems to be coming from a distinctly Canadian point of view. I will attempt a rewrite to make it more neutral after a little while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The page "Inuit" is mixed page

The page Inuit is mixed page! The Inuit peoples are Inuit languages speaking peoples: Inupiat people (or Alaskan Inuit people; own language: Inupiat language) + Inuvialuk people (or Western Canadian Inuit people; own language: Inuvialuk language or Western Canadian Inuktitut) + Inuit people (or Eastern Canadian Inuit people; own language Inuktitut or Eastern Canadian Inuktitut) + Kalaallit (or Greenlandic Inuit people; own language: Greenlandic language or Kalaallisut) --Kmoksy (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Language is only one criterion when deciding article content. Many cultural aspects are shared between the various sub-groups, so it makes sense to keep it all together. I think the article does a good job of explaining the distinctions and similarities. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Must be separated by two sheets of this Inuit page: 1) Inuit peoples (all Eskimo [excluded Yupik peoples] languages speaking peoples = Inupiat people, Inuvialuk people, Eastern Canadian Inuit people and Kalaallit); 2) Inuit people (only Inuktitut or Eastern Canadian Inuktitut speaking people) --Kmoksy (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You have not explained the '[m]ust" part of separating anything. Why is language the determinant when so much else is similar? The choice of article content and scope is not solely decided on linguistic grounds. Amd as far as I know, those "languages" are actually language families, or at least composed of distinctive sub-dialects. What distinct content do you propose for separate articles, other than noting the language variant, which this article already does? Franamax (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The page Inuit → Must have 2 separate pages = Inuit peoples and Inuit people (see above↑). The page Inuit peoples is not Eskimo peoples. The Eskimo peoples page included Yupik peoples and Inuit peoples. OK. --Kmoksy (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree there are some naming problems, however this is reflective of what has been published by many scientific fields (not just linguistics). All we can do is regurgitate what is out there.......... The term Eskimo has pejorative connotations in Canada and some in Greenland.[1] Indigenous peoples have replaced the term Eskimo with Inuit.[2][3] The Yupik of Alaska and Siberia do not consider themselves Inuit, and ethnographers agree they are a distinct people.[4][3] They prefer the terminology Yupik, Yupiit, or Eskimo. The Yupik languages are linguistically distinct from the Inuit languages.[4] Linguistic groups of Arctic people have no universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples.[1][4][5][6]Moxy (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Natalie M. Rosinsky (2004). The Inuit. Compass Point Books. pp. 5–. ISBN 978-0-7565-0640-7. Retrieved 7 August 2011. 
  2. ^ Dennis, Yvonne Wakim (2002). Native Americans today: resources and activities for educators, grades 4–8. Teacher Ideas Press, 2000. p. 3. ISBN 9781563086946. Retrieved 2011-01-27.  |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
  3. ^ a b ""Eskimo" vs. "Inuit"". Expansionist Party of the United States. Retrieved 2009-10-05. 
  4. ^ a b c Olson, James Stuart; Pappas, Nicholas Charles (1994). An Ethnohistorical dictionary of the Russian and Soviet empires. Connecticut Greenwood Press. p. 213. ISBN 0313274975.  Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Leslie Strudwick (1 October 2009). Inuit. Weigl Publishers Inc. ISBN 978-1-59036-157-3. Retrieved 7 August 2011. 
  6. ^ Danielle Corriveau (2002). The Inuit of Canada. Lerner Publications. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-0-8225-4850-8. Retrieved 7 August 2011. 
What is the difference between "Eastern Canadian Inuit" and "Eastern Canadian Inuktitut speaking people"? Having one page called "Inuit peoples" and another called "Inuit people" would be confusing to the average reader, a duplication of material and appears to be original research. Also what you are saying seems to me to would be better covered in Eskimo–Aleut languages, Inuit languages and their sub-articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Original research"??? Why? The language Inuktitut spoken by Eastern Canadian "Inuit" people (=Eastern Canadian "Inuktitut" speaking people). The "Globalize/Canada": The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. I agree. The page Inuit is mixed and "Canada-phile" (as Anglophile and Francophile). The usage of term "Eskimo" is not Anti-Canadianism. "The term Eskimo has pejorative connotations in Canada and some in Greenland". But, the term "Eskimo" is NOT PEJORATIVE in all World [excluded "Canada" and "Greenland"]. The Yupik peoples do NOT LIVE in Canada and Greenland. The usage of the term "Eskimo" is not pejorative by Nunivak Yupik (= Cup'ig) people: Nuniwarmiut Piciryarata Tamaryalkuti (= We are called Eskimo by Westerners. Although this is a term that some disapprove of, it does not bother us. There are many "Eskimo" groups, so nowadays we prefer to be identified as Cup'ig). I am Eskimo. My left hand is Yupik and my right hand is Inuit and my brother is Aleut. OK --Kmoksy (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The description of the page Inuit (: "The Inuit are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada (Northwest Territories, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut, Nunatukavut), Denmark (Greenland), Russia (Siberia) and the United States (Alaska).[2]") is not for Inuit people or peoples. This description is for Eskimo peoples (Yupik peoples & Inuit peoples). The reference number [2] is Inuit Circumpolar Council and all Eskimo-Aleut languages speaking peoples are "Inuit" by Inuit Circumpolar Council: 6. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia). This description is a political description and not scientific and not ethnological! NOTE: Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada) are Canadian Inuits: Inuvialuk people (= Western Canadian Inuit people; own language: Inuvialuk language = Western Canadian Inuktitut) + Inuit people (= Eastern Canadian Inuit people; own language Inuktitut = Eastern Canadian Inuktitut) --Kmoksy (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what your saying - do you have any references to explained your position?Moxy (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The Eskimo is the common name of Yupik and Inuit both and the Inuit is the common name of Alaskan Inupiat, Canadian Inuit and Greenlanders. The Inuit is synonymous of Eskimo only usage by Inuit Circumpolar Council and this usage is a Canadianism and not global usage! Okay! --Kmoksy (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are correct and is why the article says this with a banner at the top of the article.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree exactly at the banner ("The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.") at the top of the article. The description of the article created by "Canadianists" and not global description. The article is created for all Eskimo-speaking peoples; is not Inuit peoples (excl. Yupik) or Inuit people (iku = Canadian Inuit = Inuktitut [ike] and Inuvialuktun [ikt] speaking peoples; esp. Eastern Canadian Inuit people). Inuktitut-speaking Eastern Canadian Inuit people's (or Canadians' political) opinion is dominated at the article --Kmoksy (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Inupiat as Inuit?

It was my understanding that the Inupiat resented being categorized as an Inuit subgroup. The classification of Inupiat as Inuit seems to come from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, a group which likes to classify all indigenous peoples of the Arctic as Inuit.Kraftiga (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern culture section?

I am concerned with the first sentence of the modern culture section, which emphasizes negatives, has no citation and also does not transition to the next items in the paragraph. Thoughts? Ntomlin (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


If the page is to deal with the Canadian "Inuit" and the others are to be dealt with at pages for the American "Eskimo" and Greenlandic "Kalaallisut" or "Greenlandic People", I could see an argument for keeping the page in Canadian English. Otherwise this edit established the standard as American English. Will fix the running text shortly. — LlywelynII 02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which word are you referring to? I assume that it is "organization" which does not necessarily indicate US spelling. Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling where is shows the UK/Canada use both organisation and organization. So that edit could indicate Canadian, UK or US spelling. The next one is here but has the same problem as above. In this series of edits by one editor both ize and ise are used. However they use "southwest" which rules out UK English. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, eh

Just noticed that the Canadian Encyclopedia article on "Inuit" still repeats the same bogus etymology for "Eskimo" that Wiki editors debunked in 2004. Yeah, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOURCE, but still fun (depressing?) to see it get this stuff more right than the Big Guys. — LlywelynII 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you post a link to that debunking please LlywelynII. I'd very much like to read the arguments LookingGlass (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I think they mean Inuit#Nomenclature or Eskimo#Nomenclature. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


The lead states that "The Inuit (Inuktitut: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, "People") are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Greenland, Canada, the United States, and Russia." Yet Inuit#International_issues explicitly states that there are no Inuit in Russia either by language or self-identification. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference may act on their behalf, yes, but that does not make the Siberian Yupik people Inuit, nor do they consider themselves to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Yupik people are not Inuit --Kmoksy (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Great. I just removed the Russia mention in the lead, and we still have that international section later which does expand on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There's lots more contradictions where this one came from. Not being emic to the subject, I will not touch this one myself, but the following need to be addressed: The article title is "Inuit". Opening paragraph declares: "In the United States, the term Eskimo is commonly used in reference to these groups, because it includes both of Alaska's Yupik and Inupiat peoples while "Inuit" is not proper or accepted as a term for the Inupiat." So Inupiat are NOT Inuit and do not consider themselves to be Inuit, but are labelled Eskimo in the only country where the name Eskimo is still not a racial slur. But under "Gender Roles", we have two photos identified as Inupiat woman and Inupiat family. If the Inupiat are not Inuit and do not want to be Inuit, why are they here? Under the section Nomenclature, we read "In the United States, the term "Eskimo" is commonly used, because it distinguished both Yupik and Inupiat peoples from other native Americans. The Yupik do not speak an Inuit language or consider themselves to be Inuit." But the article on the Yupik seems to blur this distinction. Overall, the tag at the top of the article declaring "deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" seems to be taken as meaning "we must need more American content", but my reading of it is that the Inuit are strictly in Canada and Greenland, while the American kindred peoples self-identify as being not-Inuit. BeeTea (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't that complicated, really, but there is a lot of confusion, which isn't helped much by the well-meaning but clueless Wikipedia contributors who keep substituting "Eskimo" with "Inuit" everywhere it appears. Alaska's Inupiat are culturally and linguistically similar to Canada's Inuit, but do not usually call themselves "Inuit". Think of the French-speakers in Canada. They may speak French, and have some French cultural practices, but they are not French people. They are Canadians.

It's even more off-base with the Yupik people, who speak a different (though related) language and are a different people altogether. Calling them "Inuit" is like calling an Italian "French" or a Spaniard "Romanian" just because they speak a Romance language. It is very rude. Please stop doing this. (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that Greenland's "Eskimos" are also not called Inuit....nor are, I think, those in northern Quebec, or maybe it's just a different language/dialect that they have (Quebec I mean).Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Greenlandic Inuit people like the Inuit in Canada use several subdivisions. That's the same as the Akuliakattagmiut sub-group of the Copper Inuit. I added the tag not to necessarily get more US information but Greenlandic. As to the Quebec thing are you mixing up the Inuit with the Innu people who live in Quebec\Labrador. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Inuit should have a pronunciation indicated in standard IPA (the Inuktituk given is not in the standard IPA), with possible variants. Current standard Canadian is [ɪnwɪt] or [ɪnuɪt] (short i's), but my father, who worked in the Arctic for many years, pronounced it [i:nuit] ("eenooeet"). D A Patriarche (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard Canadian what? English? Inuit? — kwami (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Duh Canadian English of course, not Inuktitut (the Inuit language - the dominant one in Canada anyway). And to note that casual English is more like in-YOU-it, neither of those IPAs seems to hvae that 'y' sound huh?Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right, "Standard" Canadian English (if there is such a thing) is more "in-YOU-it". I have changed the main page to include this. Of course, since this is """, there is an implicit assumption that the pronunciation given is English, and since Inuit is mostly used in Canada, Canadian English is implied. [ɪnuɪt] would be more American (not much used there, as the next para states); I don't know what the Received English (SE British) would be, probably the same as the principal Canadian. The whole issue is rather minor in comparison to the scope of the article, so a detailed discussion of various pronunciations is best kept here on Talk IMHO — unless someone cares to start a whole new page on pronunciation!. However, I am still personally curious as an amateur philologist as to what the Inuit themselves say! D A Patriarche (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as WP-en one would hope that the pron. is English, but that doesn't mean that it is. We have IPA templates to make such things unambiguous. /ˈɪnuːɪt/ is RP, straight from the OED. Usonian is the same as Canadian. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
This and this sound like they would be pronounced by actual Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Traditional Medicine

There is currently no page for traditional Inuit medicine, please help change this by supporting the creation of wikipedia project traditional medicine. The traditional by definition cannot be the alternative; we need your help to create a detailed list of organisms and minerals used in traditional Inuit medicinal practices. Please help pool the worlds traditional medical resources to create the worlds most detailed pharmacopoeia, the world needs you. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed to Inuit people?

Perhaps this article should be renamed to Inuit people, since the word Inuit refers not only to the Inuit people, but also to their language and culture. It would be more logical for Inuit to be a disambiguation page, since this is the disambiguation pattern that is used for other ethno-linguistic groups (such as Italian, German, Polish, Ainu, etc.). Jarble (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Inuit" literately means people, that would just be redundant. There are multiple ways to name ethnic groups. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


How did anyone determine Inuit live in the Ukraine? I can't read Russian but am removing this info about providing a cite for locations of Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The thing is that you didn't just remove the Ukraine but all of the Russian Yupik. I would agree that the Ukraine number of 153 should be removed. While there might be 153 Yupik in the Ukraine it is not a significant number, no more so than the 705 Inuit living in Ottawa. If the Russian Yupik are to be removed then so should the Alaskan Yupik. However, both groups are represented by the Inuit Circumpolar Council so there is no reason to remove them from the article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, I got yelled at many years ago for adding Russia to this article. How are Yupik people Inuit? The mention of them as members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council just is part of listing all the member groups, not suggesting that Yupik people are Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Second paragraph: "Inuit" is not proper or accepted as a term for the Yupik." And the conversation that Inuit do not live in Russia was discussed previously here: Talk:Inuit/Archive 2#Contradiction. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Edit request on 20 October 2013

Change: In the United States, the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe Inuit, and other Arctic peoples to: In the United States, the term "Eskimo" is commonly used to describe Inuit, and other Arctic peoples since this is what these people call themselves collectively in the Alaska (in the United States). (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

But it's not; "Inuit" is used commonly in the United States. "Alaskan Natives" is the preferred term when discussing additional ethnic groups living in Alaska and is what's used on the US Census. "Eskimo" is increasingly falling out of favor, among Indigenous peoples, government, academia, and the general public. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Not done: please establish a consensus and/or provide reliable sources which support the change. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Total population 150,000 = Inuit + Yupik + Aleut = All Eskimo-Aleut speaking peoples

The Total population "150,000" is not true; because, included Yupik (also Unangan Aleut) population (all natives of Eskimo-Aleut languages is not Inuit!). In the site of Alaska Native Language Center of University of Alaska, Fairbanks: Alaskan Inupiaq (Inuit) 15,700, Canadian Inuit 30,500 and Greenland Inuit are 47,000. The population of Yupiks of Alaska: Central Yup'ik 25,000, Sugpiaq (Alutiiq) 3,500 and Siberian Yupik of Alaskan St. Lawrence Island 1,400 (and Yupiks of Russia: 900). The "150,000" = Alaskan/Canadian/Greenland Inuits + Alaskan/Russian Yupiks + Alaskan/Russian Aleuts. The Yupiks are not Inuit (but, sensu Inuit Circumpolar Council all are "Inuit"! This is Canada-Greenland Inuitism). The Eskimo peoples of Alaska are Inupiaq, Central Alaskan Yupik (with apostrophe: Yup'ik), Siberian Yupik (not apostrophe) and Sugpiaq or Alutiiq Yupik. The Unangan Aleuts are not Eskimo (Inuit or Yupik). The Alaskan Inuits are only Inupiat people (pop. 15,700). The Yupiks are not lived in Canada and Greenland. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll adjust the figures accordingly. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I had noticed the other day that there were multiple problems with the population figures. For example the 29,474 for Nunavut was the entire population and not just the Inuit. Numbers were referenced to censuses but without links and two, the 2007 Canada and the 2008 US, don't exist at all. There are also problems with these figures. The Canada and Greenland figures are from 1997. Not only are they outdated but at that time Nunavut did not exist. Given the Canadian figure I suspect that the Inuit total was just for the undivided Northwest Territories.
I had ben thinking for a couple of days about the best way to present the figures and realised that the infobox was not the place to show all the subdivisions of Canada. So I changed the box to use only countries because it looks odd having one US state and two countries. I added a demographics section with a breakdown of where larger numbers of people live. However, I didn't really think it necessary to break down the Inuit population of each state or province. Do people really need to know that there are just over 2,000 Inuit in Ontario? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dating system

Someone just switched the dating system around. Looking back through the history of the article, the dates have been changed numerous times from BCE/CE to AD/BC and back. The first instance I can find of anyone using either dating system was on 29 July 2003, using CE, so I'm going to change the dates back to be consistent, as per WP:Era. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013

Where: Second to last line of the "Modern Culture" section Please remove "This phenomenon is also seen in other cultures (for example, Vanuatu)." Why: The cited source (#135) explicitly states that the phenomenon is NOT observed in Vanuatu, where the people continue to eat traditional diets. Aquamarine012 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the sentence as unsourced. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Inuit Creation myths

Is there space in this article for inclusion of Inuit perspectives on their origins? --IseeEwe (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alaska or the United States

Some comments on my recently reverted edits. Personally, when we are talking about indigenous peoples, who draw their own tribal boundaries, I think it makes more sense to refer to regions (e.g. Alaska or "Aleyska") than to Nation-states. Second, "native Alaskan" refers to someone born in Alaska. "Alaska Natives" is the correct term for indigenous peoples of the place. Thirdly, "State" is capitalized when it refers to a State of the United States, and that's kind of not a trivial point here. I can understand using the wording United States when we're talking about the "arctic region of the Unites States" because the "arctic region of the United States" is a pretty specific region. That would almost be OK, were the Inuit actually inhabitants exclusively of Arctic regions, which they are not-- "Arctic" is a very specific region, and a great number of Inuit people are subarctic. Furthermore, the reference cited refers to "Alaska," not "the Unites States," so there's no real reason why Wikipedia should be changing the wording. Also, in the language section, I completely disagree with the use of "United States" instead of "Alaska"-- it is very obvious that we are not talking about the nation state at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is or was commonly used?

I have reverted a pending edit to this page which changed "Eskimo was a term commonly used..." to "Eskimo is a term commonly used..." (emphasis mine) on the basis that I believe this is a contentious change and should be discussed. So, which word should be used here? Ivanvector (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter would be that if the phrase Eskimo is still in current use in what is considered reliable sources then its still is. If they are referring to them by Innuit or another alternative name then was seems like the best option.Amortias (T)(C) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Was would be the best word here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I am rather confused as to the utility of the entire section. Certainly, the word "Eskimo" is still commonly used. Certainly, it also "was" a term commonly used. I guess the question is: contentious or not, what is the point being made here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, I actually agree with the group consensus on this one, and that section is fine, if not very cleanly worded. It's the later usage of "used to be" that I don't agree with (see my most recent edit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Inuit Geographic Range

I have a very strong Chukchi DNA population match with 14 pure blood Chukchi Inuit in extreme NE Siberia, Russia. I am 64 and this was a complete surprise. I am culturally Upper Midwest, USA white. Would so much appreciate some good commentary, from reputable sources on this Inuit connection in Russia, in this article.

The connection for me is likely through the Russian American Company, or Hudson Bay Company, as I have a DNA population match with Fort Rupert on Hudson Bay as well as approximately the Fort Vancouver (Portland, Oregon) area, and very strong Russian DNA as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016

In the articles "Suicide, murder, and death" subsection there is a hatnote link to the subsection of another article: "Suicide among Canadian aboriginal people". However, the subsection in the other article was renamed by an editor last month. This broke the specific hatnote link (leading to the general article instead of the exact subsection). To correct this, please change the hatenote in the "Suicide, murder, and death" subsection:

  • {{further2|[[Suicide in Greenland]]|[[Suicide in Canada#Suicide among aboriginal people|Suicide among Canadian aboriginal people]]}}


  • {{further2|[[Suicide in Greenland]]|[[Suicide in Canada#Among aboriginal people|Suicide among Canadian aboriginal people]]}} (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89(T·C) 10:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fish Oil

The section on diet ends with this sentence "Furthermore, fish oil supplement studies have failed to support claims of preventing heart attacks or strokes," even though fish oil supplements are not mentioned anywhere else in the entire article. That makes this sentence feel out of place. I will remove the line soon (or add more about fish oil supliments to incorporate it into the whole article better) if no one comes to it's defense.Lukejodonnell (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)