This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Inupiat Vs. Inupiaq "T" Vs. "Q" means ... All Vs. the Individual. I am the "Q" in Inupiaq, mean "one". Inupiaq in our language means... "I am real."
"Inupiat" means people. For me to say: "I am Inupiaq", is saying, "I am a real person." But by outsiders we are regarded as Eskimos "meat eaters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 October 2005
"Eskimo" is actually from Athabaskan through French and most likely means "snowshoe maker." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've gone and populated the category in someone else's stead yet again, go take a look. I think it's a pretty poor representation of notable Inupiat people (see also List of American Inuit). The impression derived from initially discovering the category and seeing only one biography article included (Shirley Reilly) was one of giving undue weight to that one person by virtue of fleeting fame in news headlines.
Let me help with a few important names, if anyone has the time: Frank Ferguson, Willie Hensley, Eben Hopson, Percy Ipalook, Herbie Nayokpuk and Howard Rock. Simeon Oliver may be of similar historical significance, but I'm unclear as to whether or not he's Inupiaq. On a similar note, the vaugeness of easily available source material makes it uncertain whether Callan Chythlook-Sifsof is actually part Inupiaq or part Yupik. Of course, there are tons of lesser-known-but-still-notable people besides.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone is hung up that the above list of names includes only men, here were some notable Inupiat women: Emily "Ticasuk" Ivanoff Brown, Della Keats and Sadie Brower Neakok. Cheers.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. The t/q issue can be discussed in a subsequent request if desired. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. We have policy that the people should go at "XXX people" and the language at "XXX language", with "XXX" being a dab page, see WP:NCL. If you don't like that, try to change the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
ReplyWP:NCL is NOT a "policy", it is a guideline which is subject to the policy known as TITLE/WP:AT; that it has never addressed the requirements of those policies is why trotting it out alone as it that's the only guideline there is makes no sense at all; that that guideline discussion is currently seeing misrepresentations and and evasions and POV forking and more suggests that NCL needs to go to RfC as actual "proper discussion" there is proving fruitless, as citations of actual policy are being ignored, as is the emergent conensus that "the people are the PRIMARYTOPIC".Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.
There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412T 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
There was a discussion and a subsequent unanimous vote in favor of explicit disambiguation of people–language pairs. "Inupiat" can refer to both the people and the language, which means it falls under "Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, a title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles". "Inupiat" was made a dab page in response to this guideline, only to be made a redirect later without discussion. --JorisvS (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that a template or just a copy-paste you're using to repeat your post across all these RMs? Hell I guess I'll copy paste to, since I'm replying to the same as-if-bot-generated comment. Here are view stats that debunk the premise that "people-language pairs" are a legitimate primarytopic equation, which is utter bunk:
That's a more than 5:1 ratio....your premise that "people-language pairs" exist as equally primary topics is rubbish, and demonstrable over and over again; one of the many flawed in NCL. Next time your crew revises that guideline, you should learn some math first and actually look at stats and, oh, sources too....Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment The common name for this people and language is Inupiaq ~ Iñupiaq in English. But, in own language, North Alaskan (North Slope and Malimiut) dialects: Iñupiaq (sg) Iñupiak (dual) Iñupiat (pl) Iñupiatun (language); Seward Peninsula (Qawiaraq) dialects: Inupiaq (sg) Inupiak (dual) Inupiat (pl) Inupiatun (language). Also see Alaska Native Language Center site (ANLC). --Kmoksy (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, if this is correct, then both the current name and the proposed name are incorrect. Maybe this should be closed and if need be relisted with a new target? No sense doing a wrong move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Apart from the question of whether to include the word "people" in the title, a consensus is also needed on choosing between the various permutations of the name.
Support. At least according to this university source, Inupiat is the plural of Inupiaq. And Inupiaq is also their language.
The name "Inupiaq," meaning "real or genuine person" (inuk 'person' plus -piaq 'real, genuine'), is often spelled "Iñupiaq," particularly in the northern dialects. It can refer to a person of this group ("He is an Inupiaq") and can also be used as an adjective ("She is an Inupiaq woman"). The plural form of the noun is "Inupiat," referring to the people collectively ("the Inupiat of the North Slope").
I don't think there is any issue with respect to t/q - it should be t in this title. --B2C 23:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Per the Inuit page, Inuit is a broader term that includes the Inupiat people as well as another. Should the relationship of Inupiat to the more commonly known Inuit term be mentioned somewhere in this article? —Salton Finneger (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that I refer to this in a previous thread. Right off the bat, the list of "notable Inupiat" in the article is more a random assortment of names than anything of encyclopedic value or at all reflecting reality. Moreover, there is a link to List of American Inuit. Since we still don't have our collective shit together as to what is and isn't an "Inuit", it's not exactly settled whether "notable American Inuit" is the exact same thing as "notable Inupiat". I'll try and comb through the rest of the article to spot any other issues. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)