Talk:Eskimo

Recent citations of usage

 * moved to Talk:Eskimo-Aleut languages

Could we put "controversial" in the lede?
I think it's the least this article can do. The page for the N-word comes right out and says that it's an ethnic slur. I should not have had to scroll so far to read "Regardless, the term still carries a derogatory connotation for many Inuit and Yupik." 142.116.232.58 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Can we get a source calling it controversial? I think that would be safest. If not, we might need another RfC. We might need another RfC anyway to change the scope of the entire article, as was briefly suggested in the previous RfC. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue is that I think you would be hard pressed to find a single person that identifies or agrees with the usage of the former word nor will you find associations or organizations related to any race of people which uses that word in a positive way. In the case of "Eskimo", there are Inupiat and Yupik tribal organizations and associations which use the word and identify with it. They literally call themselves Eskimo communities and that's how they present themselves to the outside world. I know our personal interactions are not reliable sources but can provide context. I have friends with whom I communicate regularly that are Inupiat and Yupik that both use and call themselves Eskimo's and are not offended when it is used to refer to them in the slightest. it is true that they do prefer being referred to by their specific tribal community name in most cases but we really don't sit around discussing the word or its usage. They really don't care. Maybe its just those in my circle but I'm sure there are others that feel the same way. That's why we rely on sources. If reliable sources show that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, see it as offensive or are indifferent to it, then it should be given weight but should not drown out or cancel other views also found in sources. I am sure a large percentage, if not a majority, of Indigenous peoples in the United States find the word "Indian" offensive or are indifferent to it, but it is literally used in official tribal names and many of them, self included, prefer to be called American Indian rather than Native American. So the two or three terms are not 100% comparable in that sense. I'm not sure taking such a hard stance is the best option. We can follow reliable sources and include all points of view in a neutral article without picking a side. -- A Rose Wolf  13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a good argument against expressly calling the word a slur, but "controversial" probably matches with what you are saying. I'd still feel more comfortable about the word if we could find a source that explicitly says "controversial" or similar. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ..... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not at all against calling it controversial. It is, in fact, very controversial, from the origins of the term to the usage through recorded history all the way to its usage today. Many terms are controversial and can be used as a slur depending on how its used but may not necessarily be slur words. Perceived and intended uses are sometimes very much muddied as well. Take for example, if I met you on the street and said, "It's very hard to look at you." You might perceive my comment negatively and I would understand why. However, if I followed that up with "Let me find my glasses so I can see you better.", that would add context and my initial statement doesn't sound so negative. Perception can have a lasting affect and that's why we need and have a policies on assuming good faith and against personal attacks and why civility is a pillar of the community. It seems to be very hard for many to follow it 100% of the time and I think most of us have probably failed to live up to it here before. I may not think the term is a slur but others might and its only right for me to respect their perspective and the best thing for us to do is find neutral words like what you proposed in "controversial" to describe it. I hope that clears up my position better. -- A Rose Wolf  15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably the article on redskin is a better comparison to "Eskimo" than the article on nigger. Still not quite the same thing though, even though some native Americans identify as "redskin" and use the term to refer to one another.
 * Rather than slap a content-free label "controversial" into the lead, wouldn't it be best for the lead to simply describe the different meanings and interpretations? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead not the place to got tit for tat...... unless the article is transformed into a term article. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think consensus might be building for that very thing to happen. The previous RfC certainly had some participants leaning that way.  Shall we just start a new RfC on it? Fieari (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Etymology sections in the lead always get removed overtime because they cause nothing but heartache as has been seen right here in thia article.... should have rfc about whether or not this article should be turned into a term article about the word over an odd summary article. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just had to chip in that some people use the "n" word to refer to each other too, and for nearly every other ethnic slur too. Jimydog000 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When did my Eskimo friends begin thinking that word that they used to describe their own people for centuries was derogatory? Answer: Never. To use incorrect absolutist assertions and terminology in the first few paragraphs of the article demonstrates a one-sided presentation. E.g, When you have such precise numbers for the population of the Inuit people, the use of the term "Many" to describe the number or percentage of Inuit who are actually offended by the term "Eskimo" is far too vague, and decidedly non-academic. Exactly how many? The citations do not support the assertion. The article is also incorrect in applying the term exonym, when it is and was indeed an endonym until an NGO claiming to represent Northern aboriginals, to help justify its existence, officially adopted the essentially synonymous geographical and genealogical identifier "Inuit". Eskimo is the European pronunciation of a word that the Inuit were using before European discovery, and is still what entire populations of Inuit continue to call themselves. To ignore this truth slants the article. To suggest the word is derogatory is the equivalent of calling those populations, "Uncle Toms." Talk about derogatory! No, Eskimo is not a derivative of a Cree word for "raw meat eater", but a much more precise word from the Inuit language meaning "snowshoe wearer". NO one I know, as well as the governments of several democratic nations, the CBC and NFB have ever used the term Eskimo with anything other than utmost respect. People who are able to live at the limits of human survivability command respect. They are even more quintessentially Canadian than the beaver. Excuse me, I meant "large rodent dam builder." The beavers' NGO is clearly underachieving. 2001:569:FD3C:5300:8576:FA21:73B9:1C93 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of us are tired of constant RfCs on every fucking little "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of thing. The clearest evidence that you're putting the cart before the horse here is the fact that we have Controversial and yet it's not even applied to this talk page. I've also said rather a lot in recent times regarding the abuse of Jimbo's quote about "the sum of all human knowledge". The sum of all human knowledge doesn't mean attaching a "flavor of the day" POV to every topic regardless of context. The whole of the topic needs to be considered, not just what the 21st century thinks. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to agree with Radio here. Things are getting frustrating.  I have been working on this article patiently and carefully and gently for several years, live in an extremely affected area, am an indigenous person with and indigenous Alaskan legal name, and I have studied and reached out to a plethora of original sources on this exact issue.  And yet, due to the beautiful mob-rule-misnamed-democracy that goes into the writing of (apparently) overly obscure Wikipedia articles, my edits have to somehow compete with completely uninformed, dare-I-say-it...idiots... 4/5 of whom just happen to be from Canada, who want to boost their egos at the expense of repeatedly detracting from the dispenation and propagation of known and valuable facts.  There has simply got to be a better way to deal with this article that does not waste so much of my personal time but also reflects the truth.  As Wikipedia admin's have had to be repeatedly involved with this issue, and apart from the obviously biased Admin perpetually lurking here, CambridgeBayWeather, they have basically all agreed that these efforts are clear censorship, full stop; and yet, nothing changes. I am thinking of reaching out to management to ask them to step in and deal with the situation, rectify the article to reflect reality and move it to full-protected status.  The origin of the word is not disputed, and the false etymology which lead to the idea of it being a racist term is linked to a single source, who did so under the auspices of what is pretty clearly a "colonial" version of science (show up, make something up, go home).  So the article should probably in some way reflect that fact as well.  Instead, we are forever arguing back and forth over whether it is offensive to people or not, and how important that putative offensiveness is.  I mean, what a joke.  What an absolute offence to truth and travesty of justice.  Yeah.  So anybody who agrees with me should probably put their name down here and we'll co-sign a letter or something. Fatbatsat (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any sources we can debate?? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Eskimo a slur?
I've seen some Arctic Natives (like Siberian Natives) post on their media platform talking about this. They said that the word "Eskimo" is actually racist slur against the Arctic Natives because it's offensive and perpetutes negative stereotypes. If anyone has the same thought, or have a information source about this, please put it on the Wikipedia! 125.162.215.80 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not, actually a slur, and it never has been. That is a popular misconception, which is largely based on a version of the word's etymology which is both false/fabricated and colonialist.  But a lot of people have very negative opinions about it-- it's not a very "safe" exonym these days.  And it would be really good to have Siberian viewpoints better represented in this article.  Sources we've found have been so far pretty limited.  Thanks for bringing this up! Fatbatsat (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The people, Inuit and others, referred to by the term Eskimo feel that it is a slur or offensive. It is a name imposed by outsiders, either First Nations and Europeans. The actual meaning of the word does not matter in its perceived offensiveness. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The people, Inuit and others, referred to by the term Eskimo feel that it is a slur or offensive. " --> that general, blanket claim is obviously false. The fact that it has been put down here, without reference (hint: it can't be accurately referenced), reveals only the author's own bias (or lack of education) on that matter, and reveals it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
 * Let me also add that if you are speaking to someone who you know is of Eskimo origin, unless you are quite well locally educated, you might find it difficult not to use an exonym. "Inuit" is certainly an exonym applied to the vast majority even of Inuit peoples.  But, if you're not sure of a specific tribal or tribal group name to use, and you are referring to such a person *to that person*, then the polite general term is:
 * ...in Alaska, "Alaska Native", but remember it applies to more than just Eskimo peoples there;
 * ... in Canadsa, "Inuit"-- in some sense technically accurate applied to the far-northern-coastal Alaskans as well, but not well-accepted by the "Inupiaq" people there;·
 * ... Siberia... Wikipedia believes that the correct&polite term in Siberia is "Yuit", but if you or people you're in communication over there can supply non-original research to the contrary, please fix Wikipedia-- we do know that they are closely related to the Alaskan Yupik (non-Inuit) peoples;
 * ...Greenland, eek...the polite term in Greenland... well, go there and find out... Inuit is too Canadian (indeed, the origin of the word is Canada) and is sometimes viewed as offensive, "Kaalaliit" [also likely an exonym drawing from the Norse "Skraeling"] is safer but those who are not technically Kaalaliit might take umbrage. So the best word is probably the Danish exonym-- Grønlændere-- I am guessing something about the low population density and egalitarian rules there makes people not want to delve too deep into genetics in a public setting, so long as one's family has been on the island for a few generations. Fatbatsat (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the article contains references to various people who find it offensive I really didn't think I had to repeat them here. However, see Eskimo, Inuit, and Inupiaq: Do these terms mean the same thing?, Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: What Does "Eskimo" Mean In Cree?, Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?, Ostgroenland-Hilfe Project, Eskimo, Expert says ‘meat-eater’ name Eskimo an offensive term placed on Inuit, Why You Probably Shouldn't Say 'Eskimo', Inuit, Eskimo, Eskimo, Eskimo Pie owner to change ice cream's name, acknowledging derogatory term and that's not all of them. I agree that several reference the outdated "raw meat" explanation. And by the way where are the references for your claims? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof... not on me here (obviously). Fatbatsat (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So others have to provide sources but you don't? Can you explain why you are excused from providing references? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't even understand the concept of burden of proof, what more can I possibly explain? A bare minimum of logic is required for a legitimate debate, and you either do not possess that, or are simply doubling down on an argument which you entered into with no hope of winning. I neither know, nor care.Fatbatsat (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The word is most definitely a slur, and has been all but forbidden for 20 years in North American countries with a significant Inuit population. The article must be renamed and edited. Those who continue to knowingly use the E word for an ethnic group should be banned from editing in this topic area. Good grief, even the Alaska Natives article, only has one reference to the word, and it isn't present in any prose. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The word is obviously widely considered offensive, but implicitly comparing it to nigger (by using the euphemism "e-word") is absurd. The offence from the term is not universally understood in the way that term is. Much change has been made to the article to try to shift the topic to the word itself (which is definitely notable), so I don't see why the article should be renamed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Absurd? Please don't violate WP:CIVIL. And good grief - unnecessarily spelling out the n-word; people lose their jobs for stuff like that these days. After your first two comments, I'm not sure why I'd take your third one too seriously. There's no reason I see it can't be a redirect, or simply a brief article about the word itself, with a link to the language groups, and a link to the various people the slur was used for. Recall too that the acceptability of the N word was also not universally understood to be offensive not so many years ago - even in the USA it was still used, in context, in historical children's programming in the 1970s and 1980s (with the clear message that it shouldn't be used). And in other countries it was still widely used - in in kids books and TV programs, well into the early 1970s. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But local Alaska Native organizations still use "Eskimo" in their titles. It's still an accepted term among many Alaska Native groups. It's very similar to the usage of "Indian" in the lower states. As is the case with that I'm not going to support completely doing away with the word or changing the title of this article. I do believe in being respectful and so I do believe the word should not be used to describe any group that doesn't want to be referred to by the term within the article on that group here on Wikipedia. What is absurd is the idea that we should become thought police and ban people from editing because they have a different perspective about a term that is seen as offensive to some, accepted by others, but is otherwise a net positive for the encyclopedia and a productive member of this community. It is not a violation of WP:CIVIL to call an idea absurd. I wouldn't have spelled out the word they did but I understand their point. You are trying to compare a word that is already universally known as offensive to a word that has not attained that level yet. It very well may get there and when it does we can make adjustments accordingly. -- A Rose Wolf  14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an awkward situation. It reminds me of a conversation where modern Native Americans made fun of whites for calling them "Native Americans" when among themselves they consistently referred to themselves as Indians. I'm not sure of the nuances there, but that's what they said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more nuances there, for sure, but I know quite a few that laugh when you ask them if it matters to them so much. The people I have associated with are more concerned about surviving than what some person online or some academic in a university decides to call them. Regardless, we should be following reliable sources. Where reliable sources offer opposing or different views we can discuss how to proceed. I know it's basically banned in Canada. But it's still in use in Alaska, although to a lesser degree than in the past. And yes, many Indigenous people and descendants of those first North American inhabitants do refer to themselves as "Indians". Those that do prefer that over Native American. One reason given is that anyone born in the US can be a native of America. I know it's a play on words but this is why following reliable sources is so important. When you deal with people you can have an endless amount of perspectives and feelings about any particular subject. What one person sees as a violation worthy of being banned from this community, others see no problem at all so long as that person edits in accordance with consensus and continues to maintain constructive dialogue. -- A Rose Wolf  19:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a slur, but some non-Eskimos seem to think it is. Ann Teak (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Native Alaskan NOT = Alaska Native. Different usage, cultural and legal.
Different usage, cultural and legal. Please see, for example, http://neveralonegame.com/alaska-native-people-cultures/#:~:text=1.,any%20person%20born%20in%20Alaska.&text=The%20term%20Alaska%20Native%20represents,and%2022%20different%20language%20dialects. 103.252.200.104 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Eskimid
I was thinking in adding Eskimid as a synonym somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure if it's indeed its own term or a synonym. Any input? -- MikutoH talk! 00:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an obscure racial term coined by Eickstedt and not worth mentioning in this this or any other article. It never gained traction even among like-minded scholars in the obsolete discipline of race-based physical anthropology.–Austronesier (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know that. I thought it was a non-slur alternate term. -- MikutoH talk! 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sirenik/Sirenikski
Is "(t)he extinct Sirenik language" the same as "(t)he Sirenikski language, which is virtually extinct"? 142.163.195.114 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)