Jump to content

Talk:Paleo-Eskimo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2009 edits

[edit]

The material introduced recently looks basically very good, but it needs to be meshed with what is there already. The term "Paleo-Eskimo" has been applied to the Dorset culture, their ancestors, and to the various other early peoples in the area. The fact that this was not one homogenous group needs to be made explicit. Additionally, the article needs to conform to the basic style format or it will not display correctly. I will go through the new stuff and try and introduce it as soon as I get some free time.--Cúchullain t/c 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

use of racial slur in title / article

[edit]

the word 'eskimo' is a racial slur used against the Inuit and Aleut peoples, and should not be featured in a wiki article- especially when there are perfectly valid alternate names available. i recommend changing the name of the article (and possibly adding a short section explaining that 'eskimo' is a racial slur) as well as correcting the main text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eristikophiles (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) (Eristikophiles (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • While this is true in Canada and Greenland, so far as I know, it isn't in Alaska or Russia, nor within scholarly communities. In any case, there is no universally accepted blanket term that I'm aware of that includes both Inuit and Yupik peoples except "Eskimo" (which does not, as far as I know, include the Aleuts, who are related), which is why the term is still used in scholarly works. "Indigenous circumpolar" or some term in that vein wouldn't work for that purpose, because it also includes entirely unrelated Uralic, Turkic, and Siberian peoples like the Saami. Maybe you could get "Neo-Thulian" started if you get into Arctic linguistics or anthropology? (Also worth noting: in the UK, "spastic" is extremely derogatory towards people with cerebral palsy. In the US, it's a somewhat jocular and largely inoffensive reference to hyperactivity. Such are the oddities of cross-border communication.) Haikupoet (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a conventional term in the scholarly literature. If there's another that's widely used we can discuss it, but I don't think there is.--Cúchullain t/c 21:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly sources have been changing to Inuit or other modern terms. The use of the term Eskimo is not a common phrase, just ask an anthropologist or a native Inuit. If Wikipedia wants to stay neutral, I would suggest it refrain from racial slurs unless talking about it in a historical context. Allencr10 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo is not a "racial slur" and the Inuit are not the only group of Eskimo people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.98.223 (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Paleo-Eskimo is still somewhat common amongst scholars, many have shifted to the more respectful 'pre-Inuit', 'paleo-Inuit' or other like terms. This is in keeping with the wishes of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, which, in a resolution states that "Let it therefore be resolved that the research, science, and other communities be called upon to use the term “Inuit”, instead of “Eskimo” and “paleo-Inuit” instead of “paleo-Eskimo” in the publications of research findings and other documents". (ICC Resolution 2010-01). Scholarly consensus has moved that way as well, so much that this article is, or may soon be, inconsistent with academic consensus. While the Eskimo of Alaska use Eskimo to refer to themselves, it's clear that the Inuit of the Arctic at-large are very uncomfortable with the term and that archaeologists and anthropologists have moved their terms accordingly. Remember that the above quote is from the Inuit Circumpolar council, which includes Inuit from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka. Those from Alaska recognize their eastern cousins' discomfort with the term. There are, of course, problems with moving the Wikipedia page. Nobody likes to change the name of a archaic culture (people might have no clue what you're writing about). In a concise and elegant commentary, Dr. T. Max Friesen, a notable voice in the field, notes that there is no easy name that reflects the archaeological evidence and respects modern wishes. While many scholars have had a crack at renaming it, he notes many problems with some names. An expanded Arctic Small Tool tradition, Pre-Inuit, and Tuniit all have different issues. He, however, notes that Paleo-Inuit is the "most elegant" possible (re)name for the complex. (See On the Naming of Arctic Archaeological Traditions: The Case for Paleo-Inuit by T. Max Friesen in Arctic 68, No. 3) This move was further recommended by the late archaeologist Priscilla Renouf, whose obituary, published in Arctic 69 Supplemental 1, recommends the adoption of 'Paleo-Inuit'. There have, of course, been many thousands of articles referencing both names. Recently (since ~2015), the large majority of articles have been published using the term Paleo-Inuit. Therefore, I think that a quick move to 'Paleo-Inuit' will keep Wikipedia current and respectful to the wishes of both archaeologists and Inuit. PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a big debate on what term to use......we are not at the point of any academic consensus [https://dev.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca › ...PDF

On the Naming of Arctic Archaeological Traditions: The Case for Paleo-Inuit - University of Calgary Journal Hosting].Moxy- 23:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PaulTheBoatman10 it appears that Eskimo has become less used in Alaska as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While academic consensus might not be 100% reached, Eskimo is uncommon enough to warrant the moving of the Wikipedia page. PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But academic consensus isn't the only thing used to name a page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The basic term "Eskimo" and derived terms like "Paleo-Eskimo" or "Eskimo–Aleut" are different things. But in any case, "Paleo-Inuit" is clearly gaining traction (less so "Inuit–Yupik–Unangan"). 2021 almost has seen a turning point if we can believe Google Scholar (52 vs. 61), and if you look closely, citations for "Paleo-Eskimo" mostly come from studies outside of the specialized field of circumpolar anthropology. –Austronesier (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paleo-Eskimo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Paleo-Inuit

[edit]

Requested move 4 February 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – while usage of "Paleo-Inuit" is trending upwards and "Paleo-Eskimo" is trending downwards, there's no indication of a crossover just yet. The article titles policy allows us, in the case of drift in the common name, to weight more recent sources more heavily than those in the past, so if it can be shown some time down the road that the change in the common term is sustained, the issue can, of course, be revisited. Sceptre (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Paleo-Eskimo → Paleo-Inuit – Since the problem of the slur Eskimo in the title was first raised in 2016, academic consensus and public sources have increasingly used Paleo-Inuit. The article should therefore move to reflect that. See my earlier talk post for a more broad argument. I am interested in hearing other perspectives, especially given the Inuit Circumpolar Council's resolution on the subject. PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the Naming of Arctic Archaeological Traditions:The Case for Paleo-Inuit
If it is still the most common term used by reliable sources for this subject matter, then it is clearly not antiquated or outdated in regards to this specific topic. We are supposed to follow the sources and use the term that they use, not lead them to using a new term because in our subjective judgment a term is "antiquated and outdated". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eskimo is no longer used in Canada due to the fact that modern Inuit are offended by it. As for Alaskan Iñupiat and Yupik people, it is less straightforward but most scholarly sources state that the term is becoming less common there as well. Remember, the ICC's push towards the adoption of Inuit over Eskimo did not come from nowhere! PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!vote while there might be problems with using the word "Eskimo", I'm not sure if there's a strong enough consensus in the field to use Paleo-Inuit. Quoting some sources (many already cited in the article already):
  • Braymer-Hayes et al. 2020: This is challenging in Alaska, where there is no consensus as yet on how to replace the term "Eskimo" despite the clear need to do so as many Arctic Indigenous groups do not identify with the term Eskimo, and find it offensive
  • Hodgetts & Wells (2016): Clearly, the question of an appropriate replacement for "Palaeoeskimo" remains unresolved among archaeologists, and further discussion is warranted to try to achieve consensus.
  • Frieson (2015) argues for / recommends using Paleo-Inuit in reference to the Eastern North American Arctic but also writes This leads, inevitably, to the question of what to call the comparable traditions in the western Arctic, consisting mainly of coastal northwest Alaska and Chukotka. [...] [I]ssues as fundamental as terminology need to be resolved by consensus, so I wish my Alaskan and Chukotkan colleagues the best of luck if they choose to have this conversation"
  • Howse (2018) JSTOR 48583386 decries Grønnow's (2017) use of "Paleo-Eskimo" in her book review but also writes: Grønnow is in no way alone in the continued use of Paleo-Eskimo (aka, Palaeoeskimo) and scholars are often hesitant to adopt changes in terminology until they come into common use. In this particular case, some resist the term Paleo-Inuit since it implies, incorrectly, a cultural continuity with contemporary Inuit
  • Hardenberg (2013) Trends and Ontology of Artistic Practices of the Dorset Culture 800 BC - 1300 AD uses "pre-Inuit" herself but writes The collective phrase "Palaeo-Eskimo" [...] is still widely used to refer to the larger cultural groupings of the predecessors of Inuit cultures who inhabited the same regional areas.
Even if there is a consensus in the field to stop using Paleo-Eskimo, we might not be able to find a consensus in the field as to what to replace it with at this point in time, or we might find that it isn't Paleo-Inuit. Umimmak (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment. (I'm not sure if you're supposed to support your own move request, but here we go!) Comparing Google Scholar searches for 'Eskimo' and 'Inuit' show that Inuit is by far the most common since 2021 (2,930 using Eskimo and 9,070 using Inuit). This means that most common scholarly articles are written using Inuit, not Eskimo. Things are less one-sided when it comes to specifically 'Paleo-Eskimo' and 'Paleo-Inuit', with 59 articles using Paleo-Eskimo and 51 using Paleo-Inuit. Paleo-Inuit is on the rise, but this nevertheless shows a slight preference for Paleo-Eskimo. A case could be made either for moving Wikipedia to reflect the slow change of the academic community or changing later when the terminology is set in stone. I would push for the former for a number of reasons:
  • The ICC, a major authority among modern-day Inuit, (including Alaskan and Chukotka natives) released resolutions urging that it be done, and respecting the opinions and ideas of the modern-day Inuit holds a great deal of sway over past naming, as is seen by:
  • Academic support for this change (specifically to Paleo-Inuit) from the likes of Max Friesen, the late Priscilla Renouf, Lisa Hodgetts, and Patricia Wells among others.
Remember, a good article move will be done based on the "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" as per WP:COMMONNAME. The main question here is therefore: Do we follow what most people would say (and what academia is moving towards), or stick with the narrow academic field of paleoarchaeology? A good case can be made either way, but I think more factors add up towards an educated move to Paleo-Inuit. PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just re Comparing Google Scholar searches for 'Eskimo' and 'Inuit' show that Inuit is by far the most common since 2021 (2,930 using Eskimo and 9,070 using Inuit). This means that most common scholarly articles are written using Inuit, not Eskimo. remember that Inuit and Eskimo are not synonyms; it could just be more articles are writing statements that specifically apply to the Inuit as opposed to statements that apply to both the Inuit and Yupik, so this would need to be controlled for. Also I know the ICC claims to represent Yupik peoples, but not all Yupiit are okay being subsumed under the label "Inuit". Other sources have talked about the problems with using "Inuit" as a catch-all to replace uses of "Eskimo". Umimmak (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complete misunderstanding of the word Paleo...... PaleolithicMoxy- 21:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. This will probably move to some other name in the next decade. But I'm not convinced "Paleo-Inuit" is more common than "Pre-Inuit" or other names today. And "Eskimo" is not a slur of the type that we must actively try to remove from article titles now. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Eskimo" is indeed outdated but "Paleo-Eskimo" is not. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Krakoss' argument. Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment After doing a little probing on google scholar, it seems as if 'Palaeo-Eskimo', with two A's, hyphenated, is the most common spelling, with twice the number of sources than 'Paleo-Eskimo', and three times as many as 'Paleo-Inuit'. Other spellings, like 'Paleo Eskimo' (no hyphen), and 'Palaeo-Inuit', abound. The archaeological community seems to be pretty fractionalized over spellings here, but I still hold that the movement toward Paleo-Inuit is worth something, either now or sometime in the future.
When it comes to the Dorset-Thule Inuit succession, the general opinion among academics appears that there was no real 'genocide', as there is no archaeological evidence for warfare east of Alaska at the time. (Max Friesen, “The role of social factors in Dorset-Thule interaction,” Identities and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic, (2000), 209.) In fact, many academics hold that no contact took place, but this is pretty hotly debated. Either way, a quick note stating that they were not direct ancestors of the modern-day Inuit would suffice to show readers that the Paleo-Eskimo/Inuit were distinct from the Inuit.PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PaulTheBoatman10 why did you write two separate, discontinuous comments with a bold support -- [1] [2]? You were the nominator, so already the first, separate, bulleted support was perhaps overkill (Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line., but now you've made it look like two additional people are making arguments to support your nomination. WP:RMCOMMENT). Umimmak (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UmimmakAh yeah I'm sorry, I'm not really very good at this yet. Should I condense my comments? PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated OP's earlier contributions, which are now shown as comments. 162 etc. (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! PaulTheBoatman10 (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleo-Eskimo&oldid=1208391584"