Talk:Eskimo/Archive 2

Merge of content

 * Have acted on this.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Length of article
Since the article has been lengthened by the text of the origin of the name perhpas the Eskimo language information could be made into a separate article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

mergeto Eskimo
It has been proposed that Origin of the name Eskimo be merged into Eskimo

For the discussion, see Talk:Eskimo

70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Eskimo
Have acted on this but Talk page needs to go too.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Article and talk redirected, here is the content of the talk page in case anyone cares:

eskimo are gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.80.122 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Eskimo
Have acted on this but Talk page needs to go too.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't this article be merged with the main Eskimo page?
 * You mean Inuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donchaddha (talk • contribs) 09:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Diet
They survived for many thousands of years without vegetables, fruit, or grains. How is this possible?Lestrade (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Not quite true. They didn't cultivate plants but harvested what was naturally available, although not in a large quantity. Anything missing from the plants would be available in meat. As an example vitamin C that is usually obtained from plants would have been obtained from the liver of animals. Did you see Inuit and Inuit diet? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that everything I learned in Health Class was misinformation. I'll try sitting around and chewing the fat.Lestrade (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
 * makes sure that it's the correct fat. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On September 25, 2010, the New York Daily News had an article on Stephen Colbert's Capitol Hill appearance. In it, staff writers Richard Sisk and Corky Siemaszko quoted Iowa Republican Representative Steve King as saying, "Eskimos got along all these centuries without fruit and vegetables." This remark "left Colbert scratching his head."Lestrade (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

See also Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Not all Inuit traditionally had no access to vegetables but AFAIK this was indeed the case of the Inuit living in the high central Canadian Arctic, far away from both the Pacific and Atlantic and far from the tundra line. This is also discussed in the book "Arctic Memories". The basic point is that raw meat contains all the vitamins you need, provided in particular that you eat certain organs (e.g. the liver), and eat them fresh, right after the animal has died. (It needs to be fresh for various reasons, e.g. exposure to air gradually destroys many vitamins.) Rep. King's comment is accurate in some sense but also shows typical jingoistic ignorance, as few (if any) Americans eat raw freshly-killed liver meat. Benwing (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetics
This article needs a section on genetics.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Racial Slur
The problem with the article’s title still has not been resolved. After reviewing the (tedious) discussion history, it is clear that the word eskimo is a rather strange anomaly. This is the only word I know of that is completely benign in American English, and unspeakably racist (literally) in Canadian English.

In Canada the casual use of this term has long disappeared (save for its fossilised presence in a certain CFL team). From the comments, it seems the Americans and Europeans don’t understand why this keeps being rehashed &mdash; but it’s because every time a Canadian stumbles across this page they’re forced to do a double-take; much as a speaker of any variety of English would at the Fuck, Cunt, Nigger, Pussy & Fag articles. Each of those pages attempts to account for the provocativeness of their subject matter.

The only mention of this in the lead is the paragraph claiming “[in Canada] the term eskimo has fallen out of favour”. That’s a gross understatement tantamount to deception. The word isn’t “out of favour” &mdash; Acid Wash is “out of favour”, “eskimo” is racist. Sugestions:
 * 1) More clear description of the debate in the lead paragraph.
 * 2) content relating to those peoples who prefer the term “inuit” be redirected to that page.

The concerns of American English- and Canadian English-speakers both take precedence over other varieties of English, because in this case we’re discussing a Canadian and American subject. Is anyone going to agree to this? &mdash; Mukapdia 7h33 25th March 2010
 * I think that item 1 could be improved but I'm not sure that there is much in the way of 2 that is left to be taken out. There is however a few errors with some of your comments. For example, "...unspeakably racist (literally) in Canadian English." and "In Canada the casual use of this term has long disappeared (save for its fossilised presence in a certain CFL team)." While the use of word Eskimo is, in Canada and Greenland, offensive, pejorative, has fallen out of favour (and usage), is considered by some to be racist and was without doubt used in a racist way, I really don't think that it's as racist as you make out. offensive, pejorative, pejorative, pejorative, racist, racist, used in a racist way. If there was such a racist connotation over Eskimo then I would have thought there would be more pressure to change the name of the Edmonton Eskimos, Eskimo Pass, Nunavut, Eskimo bowline (huh?), Eskimo Curlew (used by the Canadian Government), Eskimo Nebula, Canadian Eskimo Dog (probably on the way out). On top of that we have the following in Nunavut, Eskimo Point Lumber Supply and Airport Services (in Arviat, Nunavut but that is not an Inuit business), Paleajook Eskimo Co-operative Limited or Paleajook Co-operative Ltd (Taloyoak, Nunavut), Hall Beach Eskimo Co-operative (Hall Beach, Nunavut), West Baffin Eskimo Co-operative Limited (Cape Dorset, Nunavut) and Issatik Eskimo Co-op (Whale Cove, Nunavut). With the exception of the lumber and supply business the other are all in the Inuit Firm Registry Database meaning the meet the requirements set out in Article 24 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. While in the Inuvialuit region there is the Eskimo Lakes Holdings and Logistics (both in Tuktoyaktuk), Holman Eskimo Co-op Ltd (Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories) and the Mackenzie Delta Hotel Group who own the Eskimo Inn (Inuvik, Northwest Territories). These are all listed at the IRC Business Listings (click on show all). I'm sure that if the word was perceived as being "unspeakably racist" then the Inuit owned companies would have changed their names.


 * Wow, great research. I’ll admit that’s a lot of examples, but how many of these were created within the last, let’s say 20 years? Also, the proliferation of names in a list like this is not necessarily a clear indication of how acceptable a word is socially -- an example that springs to mind is the Washington Redskins football team. Despite the team being popular, there’s no denying that you can’t use that term to describe anything except the team, and that calling a Native American a “redskin” to his face would be a grave insult. It’s my belief that “eskimo” in Canada is equally racist, and I admit I don’t have a lot of research to support this (but the fact it keeps getting brought up tells us there’s something to it). &mdash; Muckapedia (talk)
 * Agreed in Canada the word is not used anymore, that is why Canada made this article (that original was translated  from the Polish Wikipedia i believe). The problem is that In Alaska, the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik  and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term or even specifically used for Inupiat. No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples. Like normal the Americans are behind in  there terminology ( like using the word Native that only the Americans still use). We have tried to solve this in the past, but have found great resistance in trying to merge the 2 articles Eskimo and Inuit (in fact the Eskimo and Inuit articles have been intermixing for some time and see here (and here ) ...What we came up with was Alaska Natives that should be called Indigenous peoples of Alaska, but for some odd reason that voted for the word Natives won...even though WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has decided to use the word Indigenous as the word Native mean something else to the rest of the world... That is it means Natural born citizen and/orNative-born citizen and not and Indigenous peoples. This is a long standing problem and until the Indigenous peoples of the North  realize that the wording is out of date and they need to sit-down and find a term, there is noreal word for all Indigenous peoples of the North we can use....What would you suggest ? 1, 2, The most common solution is merging the 2 articles and calling it Indigenous peoples of the Circumpolar North..but this was not done as it was voted down, because the Russian Indigenous peoples have there own subdivisions and felt that this was a step backwards since they have very distinctive cultural  separations..... i would love to finally resolves  thsi, but i think until all the peoples of the Circumpolar North find command ground on this we are stuck with the divide..I would say merge all to  Indigenous peoples of the Arctic.....   Moxy (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the future, please keep your offensive and ignorant comments about Americans out of your discussions - this talk page is to improve the article, not to display the limits of your I.Q. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * Muckapedia, don't give me too much credit for the research. It's easy to know how to find stuff about where you live and some of them I already knew. However, I think that I may have made the same mistake that I've noticed before with these two articles, Inuit and Eskimo. That is assuming what is true for one area of the Canadian Arctic is the same for others. The main example is the igloo, associated with all Inuit but really only used by some.


 * I decided to do some checking and see how people felt about being called Eskimo. Of course this is poorly done original research and can't be used in the article at all. What I got was a whole range of opinions from not caring, preferring that it not be used, really didn't want to be called an Eskimo, mildly offensive, very offensive and to the point of being racist. The people that had the strongest opposition to being called Eskimo were from the Eastern Arctic, Cape Dorset and Igloolik. That leads me to think that east of Cambridge Bay the word is much more offensive than it is here, and may well be thought of as racist. However, it does get complicated as I also asked my son, an Inuvialuit from Ulukhaktok, and my daughter-in-law, also an Inuvialuit, who is from the Western Arctic community of Paulatuk, Northwest Territories. My son didn't care about it but agreed with you that it's racist. My daughter-in-law said that being called an Eskimo was better than being called Inuit and most people from her home town felt the same. My son agreed and said that calling people in the Western Arctic, Inuit would be offensive, this would apply to the six communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. The problem is one of translation. In the eastern Canadian Arctic languages/dialects Inuit, always capitalised, refers only to the people in the Inuit article. However, in the western Canadian Arctic languages/dialects inuit, never capitalised, simply means people. Oddly enough this was confirmed today when standing at the store with my son and daughter-in-law and a friend came up behind us and said "Hi inuit" in much the same way we would say "Hi folks".


 * According to the Inuit Circumpolar Council all the groups we are talking about are referred to as Inuit, including the people of Alaska and Russia (caution that last one wanted to install something on my computer). Unfortunately the two articles can't be merged into Indigenous peoples of the Circumpolar North or Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, see this map. Both of those would exclude the Inuit in Nunavik and Nunatsiavut and at the same time include the Sami people, the Gwich’in and possibly others, who are neither Inuit or Eskimo. What we appear to have is the following:
 * Inuit as defined by the Inuit Circumpolar Council are the people living in Canada, Greenland, Russia and the United States formerly called Eskimo. The people of Russia and the United States do not self-identify as Inuit,
 * In Greenland the Inuit people are called Kalaallit, Avanersuarmiut and Tunumiit.
 * In Canada Inuit refers collectively to the people of the Northwest Territories Nunatsiavut, Nunavik and Nunavut. In the western part of Nunavut and the eastern Northwest Territories the people self-identify as Inuinnait or Inuinnaq. In the western Northwest Territories the people self-identify as Inuvialuit.
 * In Alaska the Inupiat, an Inuit people, may still refer to themselves as Eskimo.
 * Eskimo is still used by the Yupik of Alaska, who also live in Russia.
 * Of course most of these groups can be broken down even further. something lame from CBW 09:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Moxy, I think it's offensive to claim that "like normal the Americans are behind in there(sic) terminology." The Canadians are the ones attempting to do the equivalent of "Don't call them Orientals, call them all Chinese."  That would be certainly objected to by Koreans and Japanese, for example.  Just because most of the people who speak an Eskimo language are Inuit doesn't mean that you can get away with describing the minority by a term that it doesn't want used.
 * I also don't see how the Inuit Circumpolar Council gets off saying that you can describe people as Inuit who, in the Council's own words, do not self-identify as Inuit. Surely the mark of an offensive term for a people is that the group does not self-identify with it.  The problem is not just that Eskimo is pejorative and offensive in Canada; it's that using the accepted term in Canada for Alaskans and others to whom it does not apply is pejorative and offensive to Yupik.
 * And similarly, there are plenty of Indigenous peoples of the Circumpolar North who do not speak an Eskimo related language and who are even more culturally distinct from these group of people. Sometimes you want a word to describe collectively the speakers of these languages.  You're being extremely offensive and culturally insensitive, at the same time as you're accusing others of the same offense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.225.107.17 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm going to start this comment of with a little context. I'm eastern Canadian, and when I got linked to this article from an article on a Canadian book, I had the same reaction as I did last time someone made a 'nigger' joke in my presence, and just barely stopped myself from flaming the page. Now, I'm not black or Inuit (etc.), but I grew up with friends from Nunatsiavut who considered the term 'Eskimo' to be very very offensive, which is why I reacted that way at first. That said, I now live on the west coast, and have met people from Alaska who have thought the opposite (as described above). In the end, because I am white, the only context I have to look at this, and this is something I think we should all try to do, is through words like 'queer]', '[[fag' and gay; the last of which is what I call myself, but I have been called all three in both anger and kindness, and it is important to know that all three mean different things to different people with surprising geographical variation. Where I come from, using the word 'queer' to refer to the LGBT... community would be considered a big insult by all but the most traveled or youngest community members, and I'm sure they would react poorly to how things are grouped on Wikipedia, but at least that controversy is mentioned in the article (to some extent). So, because I can understand that both 'simple' options (Eskimo and Inuit) are very loaded terms to at least some people, we really need to make that clear from the opening paragraphs of both articles. An even better solution, mentioned below by Muckapedia, would be to simply have a redirect page that lets each group have their own way on their own page.
 * Either way, I think we can all agree that whether we are trying to group people under the term 'Eskimo' or 'Inuit' or what have you, and these people are saying 'I find that offensive' then we are doing something mean for no reason. Even though the word 'Eskimo' makes me feel ill, because of what it is meant where I come from, I do not have the right to have it stripped from this article, because doing so would put someone else in the place I don't want to be. But ignoring the true weight of the controversy (even though in some places, such as now, it is people reacting on others' behalves) which I feel is done in this article as it is currently written, is just as wrong.naturalnumber (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect hierarchy
So why not this:
 * Eskimo becomes a disambiguation page, pointing to the following pages:
 * 1.Inuit in Canada, containing sections/page links to:
 * Inuit, Inuvialuit
 * 2.Eskimo in Alaska, containing sections/page links to:
 * Inupiat, Yupik, and a related group, the Aleut
 * 3.Inuit in Greenland, containing sections/page links to:
 * Kalaallit, Avanersuamiut, Tunumiit
 * 4.Eskimo in Russia (no page, just heading in redirect that links to same yupik page)
 * Yupik etc.


 * 5.Although not eskimo, the term could be mistakenly applied to a number of other circumpolar peoples:
 * Saami
 * Gwich'in etc.

The copy for the Eskimo redirect could be: “Eskimo refers to a number of indigenous circumpolar peoples. In some dialects of English the term is neutral, while in others it is highly offensive. For this reason the relevant articles have been categorised into the following manner:” Obviously this is a rough draft, I’m not sure if Gwich'in is relevant, and there’s probably more groups we could mention under Russia. Basically this would be a list to articles of circumpolar people, specifically geared to anyone who was searching for Eskimo. Thoughts? &mdash; Muckapedia (talk) 1 e avr. 2010 13h11 (−4h)
 * I've been thinking as to how the material that is currently here and not found elsewhere could be merged and to where. I originally thought that it could go into the Inuit article but that's already large enough. So I wondered if something like this would work. Then the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic would contain all (and probably more) groups in the Arctic, like you show above, even if they are not Inuit/Eskimo. something lame from CBW 12:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hygiene
If Eskimos live in the frozen North, do they bathe?Lestrade (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Of course. First of all the Arctic is not frozen all year round. Second almost all Inuit/Eskimo live in modern houses with all the conveniences, including running water/baths/showers, that would be found in southern parts of the countries that they live in. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources not avalible
Sources 15 and 16 are no longer avalible. Can someone replace them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.234.48 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lower 48
"The term Eskimo is commonly used by those in the lower 48 to include both Yupik and Inupiat..." who are "those in the lower 48"? What is the "Lower 48"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.125 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See Contiguous United States (section The Lower 48) --Kmoksy (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Collective term
So, what is the alternative to using "Eskimo(s)"? The article suggests Inuit-Yupik, but this is arguably incorrect: According to Talk:Alutiiq, the Alutiiq don't consider themselves Yupik. The Siberian Eskimos might not all consider themselves Yupik, either (for example the Naukans; the Sireniki have been argued to be a separate branch, and Yupik may be paraphyletic as a linguistic group). The Inupiat do not accept the term "Inuit" for themselves, the Inuvialuit also have a distinct identity, and the Greenlanders (Kalaallit) don't seem to view themselves as Inuit, either (not to mention the Tunumiit and the Avanersuarmiut). Hence, to express the notion encapsulated in the word Eskimo, you need a compound like Inuit-Inupiat-Inuvialuit-Kalaallit-Yupik-Alutiiq-Yuit-Naukan-Sireniki-... with "Aleuts" added if you want to talk about the larger group. Don't you think that constantly talking about the Inuit-Inupiat-Inuvialuit-Kalaallit-Yupik-Alutiiq-Yuit-Naukan-Sireniki-...-Aleut languages would quickly become tedious for a specialist dealing with them regularly? There's a reason why shorthand collective or inclusive terms exist, such as "First Nations", "Alaska Natives", or "Native Americans", applied without respect to the views (and perceptions of identity) of the so designated. That's the nature of exonyms. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Inuit is accepted by all of the circumpolar peoples that are members of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Also we don't need to use selfidentifying terms, but the ones that are most common in the literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting statements throughout Wikipedia, though. Especially the Inupiat are said to resent the term Inuit applied to them, not to mention the so-called Yupik. Perhaps the Inuit Circumpolar Conference doesn't speak for all Eskimos. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yupik and Inupit are members of the ICC. The ICC of course does not claim that all of the individuals in the groups that it represents identitfy as Inuit - but the fact that it exists and has memberships form the entire "Eskimo" group shows that Inuit is fine as a collective term for official usage. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, why does the article state that the term "Inuit" is not accepted in Alaska? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because (as is not uncommon) what a bunch of politicians does (and make no mistake, that's exactly what the ICC is: a group of politicians) may have little or no connection with what their constituents actually want, particularly minority constituents. Yup'ik/Yupik people DEFINITELY do not like being called "Inuit". That's not even a word in their language. What do you think would happen if the EU suddenly decided that all speakers of a Romance language (Italians, Spaniards, Catalans, Romanians...) would henceforth be called "French"? Would they be happy? That is exactly what you are doing when you call Yup'ik/Yupik people "Inuit". 76.199.9.121 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note..The phrase "lower 48" is used in this article to distinguish Alaskan usage from the rest of the USA. Does this mean that folks in Hawaii do not use "Eskimo" in the same way? Dr Wagstaff (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Dr. Wagstaff
 * I too noticed that strange distinction. It seems highly unlikely that Hawaiian usage would differ in a matter so far removed from Hawaiian experience.  I think that it is simply an oversight and will try to correct it to include simply the whole USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That didn't really work either. It needed to include Greenland as one of the places where Eskimo is not used. But given that the third paragraph explains about Canadian and Greenlandic usages there was no need for it twice. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples of the North American Arctic
Why not have the searches for the aforementioned names link to this article with the title Indigenous People of the North American Arctic? And have the name problems within the article made in detail in the introduction as how it is viewed by each tribe of peoples, Canada, and USA. Have Eskimo mentioned, but not as the overall name of all these peoples - it's painting with a broad brush as the saying goes. I believe Indigenous Peoples of the North American Arctic would be a much more favored overall title for the article and in referencing all these peoples as a group.

65.92.205.173 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling the page "Indigenous People of the North American Arctic" would not be sufficiently broad, as the people encompassed by the term "Eskimo" includes indigenous Russian speakers of various Yupik languages. -- dowobeha (talk) 20:41, 7 Aug 2013 (UTC)


 * It needs to be plural Indigenous peoples of the Arctic. This title passes WP:CRITERIA on all 5 points. Unless it is limited to Indigenous peoples of the North American Arctic gets 127 GB hits, vs [..people..] only 7 GB hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Eskimo → ? – I know this is going to open a can of worms but it needs to be discussed. The term Eskimo is commonly accepted as being racist in Canada amongst reliable sources, where the vast majority of the subject population is located. This is not a general political correctness issue but comparable to employing Nigger in the United States. I've left the suggested name blank but suggest Inuit–Yupik or Inuit as options but it's fair to say the current title is entirely unacceptable. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've never heard of a move proposal with no destination in sight, but this article acknowledges that "Eskimo" is a pejorative term, but still in common parlance in many countries. That's why there are well-established articles for Inuit, Alaska Natives, Inupiat people, and Yupik peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Commonplace for Alaska and for a couple sports teams, not any other area. Reliable sources widely accept the term as racist (Ex: Museum Provision and Professionalism,Social Accounts and Subculture of Violence Norms, Donna Jo Napoli: Writing with Passion,Language Matters: A Guide to Everyday Questions About Language,Race and Sport in Canada: Intersecting Inequalities)--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Without regard to the quality of the proposal, actually it's not that uncommon to propose a move this way. Red Slash 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose while this term may have a pejorative meaning in Canada, it is still commonly used in Alaska. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but reliable sources don't widely call this population by this name anymore, with the noted exception of Alaska.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "it is still commonly used in Alaska" doesn't mean anything, where's the evidence that all Alaskan Inuit and Yupik like it? If the "Alaskan Eskimos" like the term then why was the name "Eskimo and Aleut" changed to "Native Alaskan" in US Census 2000?, has this been reversed since? And if this was true, is the argument only offensive in Canada that it's okay to offend Canadians but not Americans? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably CB:PRECISE and CB:RECOGNIZABLE, so that all native people of Alaska would feel like they belonged in the category - it's also more CB:CONSISTENT with the common American name for what Canadians call "First Nations" people, Native American. It's also slightly more CB:CONCISE, though it admittedly loses on CB:NATURAL for most native Alaskans. Face-smile.svg (Sorry, I was having fun!) Red Slash 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Further, Inuit already has an article, and that article explains the difference between "Inuit" and "Eskimo".  The popular meme that "Eskimo" is racist is pure bovine manure—and even amongst those who consider it pejoritive, it lacks anything like the punch of "nigger".  Those who mistaknely believe it a racist term also mistakenly believe that "Eskimo" and "Inuit" are equivalent terms, which they are not. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The word Eskimo is nowhere near as bad as the word nigger. If it was I think you would see a large amount of people trying to change the name of the Edmonton Eskimos. I looked at the links and for the https://www.google.ca/#q=eskimo+racist+-edmonton+-wikipedia&safe=off&tbm=nws the first hit talks about Halloween costumes without actually saying that Eskimo is racist (and it's a blog anyway). The second refers to Mel Lastman using Eskimo but does not clearly state if it is racist. The 3rd, 4th, 9th and 10th are all links to an Alaskan publication that warns people who comment not to be racist but also talks about the Eskimo Stick Pull. The 5th is clear that Eskimo is racist. The 6th again does not draw a link between racism and Eskimo. The 7th is about the racism in Halloween costumes. The 8th says "Eskimo Pie remains culturally insensitive" and the one hit on the second page is no better at showing the word is considered racist. The https://www.google.ca/#q=eskimo+racist+-wikipedia&safe=off&tbm=bks link suffers from the same problems as the first. The 1st link is to a book with an Inuvialuit woman stating that she does not feel the word to be racist. However, there are others (the 3rd link) there that do point out the problems with Eskimo but it goes on to point out the problems with using Inuit to cover all groups. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Eskimo" is not equivalent to "nigger", full stop. 168.12.16.14 (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Any term can be offensive if you use it offensively, but "Eskimo" is the only name in use for the people described in this article. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commend Labattblueboy for raising the topic - per an evident problem as seen here. Also an exceptional case where a → ? destination is for once helpful. Though disagree, not comparable to the N word, nevertheless N.T. Wright (to pick an author totally unrelated to Inuit-Yupik peoples) knows enough to say "..a bit like 'selling ice to the Eskimos' (yes, I know: we might want to say 'Inuit' instead of 'Eskimo', which some (not all) find offensive)." then we could not knowingly be offensive to some (not all) Inuit-Yupik as well.
 * The question then is this;
 * knowing that some are offended do we wish to go ahead offend some (not all) anyway in order to prevent Eskimo REDIRECTing to an academic title like Inuit-Yupik? Given that the fact that the name offends some (not all) has been demonstrated from WP:RS above therefore consensus appears to be willing to knowingly offend some (not all) . Not exactly one of en.wp's greatest moments. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A better comparison than nigger (which has no encyclopedic value designating a group of people) is Mongoloid which, like Eskimo, is the only term that accurately defines the particular category but which also has offensive uses. —  AjaxSmack   04:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A better word yet would be gypsy, which we have avoided here at WP. Red Slash 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that "gypsy" is the closer analogy.  Montanabw (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This the most used and best known term. Sure, it can be offensive to the Inuit people, but Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view. The article can state that the Inuit people find the word offensive and prefer their native name instead. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:JIP why is the academic term Inuit-Yupik less WP:NPOV than a term that sources confirm some Inuit-Yupik find offensive. Surely WP:NPOV works the other way round. This isn't Catholic vs Protestant/Secular in the going-nowhere Talk:Saint Timothy discussion, this is a name which offends and a name which doesn't. I don't see who the WP:NPOV guideline is relevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that there isn't any other term which exists as a collective term for all of the distinct groups that were historically designated as "Eskimo" — Inuit covers some but not all of them; Yupik covers some but not all of them; Inupiat covers some but not all of them. And while the term does cause offense to some people, it is not in any meaningful way equivalent to the n-word. It's certainly not ideal, but the fact that the nominator had to give a question mark as the target name demonstrates rather pointedly that there isn't really another option here — like it or not there just isn't another viable title for this article. And each of the distinct subgroups already has its own separate article anyway, so none of them is actually in a situation where the problematic term constitutes their only presence on Wikipedia. The article can and should (and already does) discuss the reasons why the term is problematic, but until another term actually replaces it as the standard usage in the real world it's not Wikipedia's place to invent an alternative ourselves. Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Eskimo is cover term for Inuit and Yupik. The term Eskimo is "pejorative" for Canadians (only Inuit sub-branch in Canada) and "not pejorative" for Alaskans (both Inuit and Yupik sub-branch in Alaska). In Alaska "Eskimo" is not considered pejorative and means the collection of both Inuit and Yupik peoples: "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" (< Nuniwarmiut Piciryarata Tamaryalkuti : We are Cup'it. In my opinion, the Eskimo is like akutaq, both sweet and nice! --Kmoksy (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Kmoksy, Canadians are also people, almost. How does "this is only offensive to Canadians not Alaskans" justify the current title? (even if it is true, given Alaska Census change). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The academical usage of the term [Alaskan] Eskimo is not pejorative: Study of the Chevak dialect of Central Yup'ik Eskimo by Anthony Cabot Woodbury 1981 (University of California, Berkeley), Yup'ik Eskimo Dictionary by Steven A. Jacobson 1984 (first edition) and 2012 (second edition Alaska Native Language Center), Iñupiat Eskimo Dictionary by Donald H. Webster and Wilfried Zibell 1970, Iñupiatun Eskimo Dictionary by Wolf A. Seiler 2012 (SIL International). --Kmoksy (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Putting aside my utter disgust with the nominator's argument, I still oppose. This was a truly ignorant nomination with regard to the horrific and atrocious history associated with the N-word. Awful. It's 2013. Don't you ever just throw that word around. I wouldn't call it malicious at all, and I do not criticize the person who nominated it (you probably just didn't realize it--that's fine, I'm glad to inform you!) but it was woefully ignorant. Woefully. Do not, I repeat, do not compare anything to that word unless it carries with it a long history of accompanying lynchings, forced racial segregation, etc... or just don't compare anything to it.


 * As for the underlying proposed move, it is far from clear to me--in any country--that eskimo is even offensive in and of itself. It is emphatically not in the same category as the N-word (or at least no evidence has been provided for that assertion). My best guess (again, just a guess, the nominator did not provide adequate sources) is that Inuits and other people who do not consider themselves Eskimos do not like being called Eskimos, which is understandable, but that doesn't make it a slur for those who self-identify as being of that ancestry. Red Slash 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash WP:RS sources say it is offensive to some Inuit and Yupik. What are your sources to say that Eskimo does not offend anyone? In ictu oculi (talk)
 * It was given above in the OPs book links, North Star of Herschel Island. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, your link says:
 * So how exactly does Mary Frost, aged-68, saying "to some extent it's a generational thing" answer the question "What are your sources to say that Eskimo does not offend anyone?" please see wikt:anyone. The whole point of this discussion is whether wikipedia wants to offend some and how many we should offend before it becomes too many. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read the rest of what she had to say on page 8 as well? And is she not any one? There are still plenty of Inuvialuit who prefer the term Eskimo to Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for the first WP:RS to be quoted by the nominator or any supporters in support of the move (not counting the one link you threw out--okay, someone from Great Britain writing in a book about the book of Revelation has heard someone say at one time that Eskimo was offensive to some people)... if the word "eskimo" is offensive there will be sources for that. As an aside, this nomination got off to a terrible start and should probably be snowballed because that comparison to the n-word is absolutely ridiculous, as I notice you agree--the discussion here was going to be impossible from the very start because people see that and immediately are disgusted. Red Slash 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Red Slash sources have been given that Eskimo is offensive to wikt:some people, but you and several other editors CambridgeBayWeather, seem to want a source that says the term is offensive to wikt:everyone before en.wp has to take notice of the issue. Take Encyclopedia of Native American Music of North America ed. Elaine Keillor, ‎Tim Archambault, ‎John M. H. Kelly - 2013Page xxxii "Although the term, “Eskimo” appears in many writings, it can be offensive to many northern native peoples. The preferred term for these cultures within Canada is Inuit or Inuvialuit". In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not writing in a way that leads to constructive conversation. I know what the word "some" means. This is not appropriate for conversations.
 * I close this conversation with you by advising you to look through this RM discussion and analyze the reasons for opposing. Like how there's no actual plausible location that matches our naming criteria--a set of criteria, you will note, that does not include WP:INOFFENSIVE. Red Slash 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I close this conversation with you by advising you to look through this RM discussion and analyze the reasons for opposing. Like how there's no actual plausible location that matches our naming criteria--a set of criteria, you will note, that does not include WP:INOFFENSIVE. Red Slash 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Support concept: Agree that move destination is vague and needs work, but "Eskimo" is viewed as offensive by enough people that I think it best avoided.  Essentially, if an ethnic group does not like a term given to describe them by outsiders but used to describe them, (like southern white people being called "crackers" or "white trash", perhaps) then it is simple human decency to not use it.  I see no concern with a rename to Inuit-Yupik, or with Native People of Arctic North America, or whatever.  But just because some people are OK with it for themselves does not follow that it should be kept where other groups -and the larger in population - are quite offended.  (This parallels the "Indian"/"Native American" issue in the USA)  Some thought and links to help everyone out here. Good source in Alaska, explains it well,  quick summary.  Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So should we then delete Nigger, White trash and Cracker (pejorative) because people don't like them. It's an encyclopaedia and as such is going to contain articles that offend people. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is among the less helpful comments in this disappointing RM. We don't actually have the main demographic group under these titles. The comparison is Gypsy. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The main demographic group is under Inuit and other articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, of course the term is offensive to many, and yes, Inuit, Yupik, and Inupiat peoples have faced horrible racial prejudice, violence, rape, relocation, and cultural genocide. This is not disputed. Can we move on in this discussion? The ethnic groups articles are under Inuit, Yupik peoples, Inupiat people, and other appropriate terms. This article is about the term and concept of "Eskimo," which is still very much in use in Alaska, and Greenland as well. Wikipedia is not censored, and there's obviously not a consensus to move or delete this article. The Inupiat people article is weak. Why not funnel some of this energy into improving it? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * User:Uyvsdi that is a sensible suggestion, but the problem is that this article isn't about the term - as you correctly point out it is actually about indigenous peoples of the Arctic or indigenous peoples of the North American Arctic and has more information about Inuit, Yupik peoples, Inupiat people than the actual articles. Per sources such as Edward J. Hedican Applied Anthropology in Canada: Understanding Aboriginal Issues 2008 "Inuit also replaces the term Eskimo, an Algonquian (or Algonkian) word meaning 'eaters of raw meat.' The term Eskimo is, however, sometimes still used in Alaska as a cover term for Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut, who are related linguistically to one another. " we should have a lead which says:
 * Then we can fork out content related to the peoples to the relevant people articles. It isn't just the pejorative problem of Eskimo/Gypsy, it is also the lump-together problem of East Europeans, Iberians. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or move to 1 of the pre-RM proposed titles Indigenous People of the Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, Indigenous People of the North American Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the North American Arctic and leave a hatnote to Eskimo (term). Without a full dab unlike Gypsy. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or move to 1 of the pre-RM proposed titles Indigenous People of the Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, Indigenous People of the North American Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the North American Arctic and leave a hatnote to Eskimo (term). Without a full dab unlike Gypsy. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I could, theoretically, see the benefit of "Eskimo" being made a dab, like Gypsy is, linking all of the ethnic groups above, with no need for my earlier suggestions of a clunkier title. And actually, the "eaters of raw meat" translation is questioned as accurate by some, but this translation is at the root of why it is viewed as an insult. Can we incorporate the content of the article into other articles, or not??? That said, Uyvsdi is right that we may not want to spend a lot more bandwidth discussing this. But as it is apt to arise again later, it would be nice to resolve the matter,  Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe the matter is resolved, even if the conversation isn't. There's ten "opposes" to the move (not counting people reiterating their continued opposition), and one "support." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Well, your point is well-taken on that. Not worth further drama here.   Montanabw (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic" as titles don't work either. Using that would include other indigenous groups like the Sami and the Gwich'in and other people not included normally in either this or the Inuit article. Also Nunavik and Nunatsiavut with an Inuit population lie outside of the Arctic. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW Circumpolar peoples is essentially indigenous peoples of the Arctic. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Oppose. Inuit is an established article where the word "Inuit" is defined linguistically so that it leaves out Yupik-speakers. "Inuit-Yupik" is just a made-up term no one in the real world is using, at least if this ngram is anything to go by. Any word is offensive if someone wants to be offended, although at the same time there are words an encyclopedia should avoid. Without a workable proposal on the table, we don't have to deal with that issue here. Gum-chewing coolster (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Though we seem to have a WP:SNOW situation, I must comment to coolster. I would like to see a solution, eventually.  Words that offend really DO need to be addressed, they don't belong in an encyclopedia (save for in appropriate discussions of etymology such as the articles on the other ethnic groups discussed above as comparison) and it is unkind - and a false argument - to say things like "Any word is offensive if someone wants to be offended"  That's nonsense - people have a right to be called what they prefer to be called and it is bullying, invalidating and generally disrespectful to do otherwise in the face of a stated preference.  I guess I'd like to see "Eskimo" become at most a list article with a brief intro and definition, short discussion and then a list of all the ethnic groups that have had the label slapped on them, rightly or not.  Just because some people "don't mind" the word, I have to say I still don't see anyone jumping up and down saying "call me an Eskimo, please!"   Montanabw (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with User:Montanabw, (and to those who say "Any word is offensive if someone wants to be offended" what word do you think someone might use of someone who says that and would you be offended to be called it?), but RMs aren't the place to educate editors, the reality is that we have here an article on a word which is relevant and notable, so agree why not move more content out to Circumpolar peoples (perhaps with better name later Indigenous People of the Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, Indigenous People of the North American Arctic, Indigenous Peoples of the North American Arctic)? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's offensive; the article now states that in the first sentence. Regarding articles, think Wiki capitalization, i.e. Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, Indigenous peoples of the North American Arctic. Yes, please improve the ethnic group articles, such as those in Category:Inuit groups and Category:Alaska Native ethnic groups. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * "what word do you think someone might use of someone who says that and would you be offended to be called it?" Aren't we so clever when we can make a personal attack in a parliamentary way, without using any forbidden words?. Gum-chewing coolster (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (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.

Aleuts are not Eskimo
"Eskimo refers to the group of indigenous peoples, mostly Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut" is not true. Because, Aleuts are not Eskimo (< uaf.edu by Lawrence Kaplan, an Eskimologist professor of Linguistics and currently serves as director of the Alaska Native Language Center) --Kmoksy (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The current version is filled with errors, but I don't want to break the 3RR. The previous version doesn't mention Aleut. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

In Fact Aleuts are (very close to) Yupik, i.e. Eskimo
Your link does not support your claim. I repeat Aleuts are essentially Yupik, and therefore Eskimo, insamuch as the word "Eskimo" means anything if we let idiots write the Wikipedia article on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The linguistic community would beg to differ with your assessment. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The True Aleuts (from Promyshlenniki Russian Алеутъ Aleut; own name Unangan) are not Eskimo. But, the Alutiiq people (from Promyshlenniki Russian Алеутъ Aleut; own name is Sugpiaq) is Yupik-speaking Eskimo (but culturally Unanganized). In the your sentence ("Aleuts are essentially Yupik, therefore Eskimo"), "Aleuts" is "Alutiiqs" and the Alutiiqs (or true name: Sugpiat) are Yupik people. The Inuit Eskimos (including Alaskan Inupiat, Canadian and Greenland Inuit) and Yupik Eskimos (incl. Siberian Yupik, Central Alaskan Yup'ik/Cup'ik/Cup'ig, Alutiiq/Sugpiaq) are Eskimo peoples, but Unangan Aleuts are not Eskimo! --Kmoksy (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it has perhaps been pointed out before that ethnologue.com is not a reliable reference source, as it is a general sourcing and disagrees with several expert references. Yet that is entirely beside the point: we are not talking about the Language, here, are we? That the languages are different I should think would be utterly obvious; the isolation of the Aleutian chain extends for 1000+ miles after all. "Aleuts" refers to two ethnically related but linguistically distinct groups of people. One is Unangan or Unangam Aleuts, the other is the the Alutiq (literally Plural form of "aleut", more exactly Sugpiaq or pacific Yupik), who are closely related to the Southern Yupik. Whether the Western Aleuts are more closely related to the Siberian Yupik or the Mainland Yupik is a matter of ambiguity (See Crawford et al http://www2.ku.edu/~lba/documents/2010/Crawford%202010%20Origins%20of%20Aleuts%20and%20the%20Genetic%20Structure%20of%20Populations%20of.pdf) partly due to wholesale massacre and enslavement by the invading Russians, and it would be jumping the scientific gun to refer to them as strictly Yupik, but certainly we can say that both groups are Eskimo, as strong evidence suggests that (most of) their ancestors came over the land bridge with the second wave of migration rather than the first (that being the ancestors of most of the Native American tribes), they have strong genetic connections to peoples on both sides of the land bridge, and they fall under no other broad classification of peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.144.8 (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The names of the Pacific Yupik Eskimo: endonym Sugpiaq [sg] Sugpiat [pl] (before Awa'uq Massacre < from Yugpiaq < Yupiaq : Alutiiq s- = Yup'ik y- = Cup'ik = c- ) and exonym Alutiiq [sg] Alutiit [pl] (after Awa'uq Massacre < from Russian Aleut) --Kmoksy (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The above solution is obviously not viable--Eskimo is not Pejorative
The dominant opinion among linguists is that "Eskimo" comes from the Obijiwa "Net snowshoes." This information is readily available from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks Alaska Native Language Center, one of the premier institutes of study in the North, and perhaps the only one close enough to the Arctic Circle to count. Furthermore, while the term has been considered offensive in Canada, that is of questionable encyclopedic relevance, as has already been pointed out by other users on this Talk page. Certainly it is unreasonable to define the entire concept as perjorative, when it is obviously in fact a word that has no replacement. Inuit, of course, is completely unacceptable, as has been pointed out numerous times on this talk page. Lastly, the word Inuit is not merely offensive when applied to Yupik and Aleut people, it is flat wrong. It is akin to calling everyone who lived in the former Soviet Union "Russian" just because some large fraction of the people who live in the former Soviet Union do speak Russian. Ridiculous!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artanajuat (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

== AGREED-- Eskimo is not pejorative. To say otherwise is tantamount to trying to put an artificial damper on free speech, and that's not really what Wikipedia is about. I completely agree with the reasoning put forward by Artanajuat. Responding to the comment last made in favor of keeping the article as i, I have to point out that the Yupik and Aleut peoples/languages are very closely related, and saying that Aleuts are not Eskimos basically just reveals the ignorance of the writer and why an overall umbrella term like "Eskimo" is entirely necessary at this time. If it represents a useful scientific concept it basically cannot be pejorative. Being politically correct is great until it gets squarely in the way of the truth. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the angry flower (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

AGREED: Non-Pejorative
Artanajuat is correct on all counts. A glance at the "Inuit" WP page, or almost any other WP page related to this topic will suffice to show that. I am not really sure how the clear (and numerous) opinions on this talk page were circumvented and ignored when the articles was written. Also, it is worth noting that the varying groups are easilly confused. For instance, one of the recently removed citations is itself unsourced and highly doubtful: it cites "inupiatun" as a "Northwest Alaska" language (inupiatun is essentially another way of saying inuit), yet it is linked as if it referred to the entire eskimo group. Further, within the brief entry article, it manages to use the word which it has labelled pejorative not once but twice. That's a pretty ridiculous source if you ask me, and anyway is irrelevant in that particular part of WP articles on "Eskimo" because, as previously pointed out, it is not widely held to be pejorative, nor is linguistically pejorative.

user didn't sign but the above comment was by User:Bob the angry flower


 * What matters is what Yupik and Iñupiat and other Inuit peoples think. There isn't complete agreement but there is widespread feeling that the term is perjorative (as discussed at length, the term is more acceptable in Alaska than it is in Canada). As citations have pointed, including from the linguistic resource Ethnologue, the term is pejorative. The fact that *you* don't find it pejorative is irrelevant. You can't accuse someone of "ignoring" your comments if you haven't written them yet. And additionally, wp:sockpuppetry is not acceptable on Wikipedia. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

(1) You have no idea who I am (2) You have no idea what I think (3) Yupik are not Inuit!!! They will NEVER BE Inuit! They will always be offended at being called inuit. Can you read??!! And Aleuts will never be Inuit-Yupik or Iñupiat-Yupik. And they will always be Eskimos, more closely related to Yupiks than to Alaskan Inupiat, let alone Canadian Inuit. That linguistic resource is WRONG!!! You are paying no attention whatsoever here. This has nothing to do with me, and everything to with a single Wikipedia user (you) attempting to write his own very poorly informed view into Wikipedia, and THAT IS WRONG. "Eskimo" is not a great word, but scientifically it's the best one we have for the subject right now, so in the name of truth, science, legitimate political correctness, LEAVE IT ALONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the angry flower (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that Yupik aren't Inuit; that's why I listed them separately. It doesn't matter who you are. What matters is widely-held views backed up by published sources. Using exclamation points, writing in all caps, and issuing edicts does not make for a convincing argument. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Well it is quite obvious that the two IP's and the two named editors are more than likely one person.
 * The original comment above has http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/ which quite clearly says that it is "considered derogatory in many other places". To me that kind of defeats your argument. The whole section you added that starts "There has been some unfortunate confusion in the message..." is an opinion and unsourced. What was on the article was not produced by a single person but by a consensus formed by multiple people. What you should have done is read the talk page before you edited the article and after you were reverted the first time started a new discussion here, see WP:BRD. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On a different note, CBW, I prefer the caveat you added, "considered by many" in the first sentence. Previously it read "widely considered" and that was only taken out because User:Perey declared the caveat to be a weasel word. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Thanks. It just seemed to me that they way it was gave the impression that all people saw it as pejorative. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Completely Worthless, Intellectually Dishonest Article
Thanks for throwing the book in my face, folks. Very mature. Let me point out that I was not the first one to unilaterally reverse someone else's edits without reason or provocation. You've gone a long way towards shaking my mountain of faith in Wikipedia. So look here, you rule-nitpicking Wikipedia-lawyers, you may not care about the truth at all, but you should at least care about the reputation of the encyclopedia you are editing:

-- Might does not make right, majority opinion is not fact, and Wikipedia is liable for slandering people, so please excuse me if I try to rid it of utter BS at every opportunity, in any way that I can.

--"Nuttal 580" is not a source. That and no other reason is why I deleted it.

--"www.ethnologue.com/language" is a source, but it is one directly in conflict with the facts in this case, a source wrong and out-of-date. 'Eskimo' is not, linguistically speaking, a pejorative term. True, its exact etymology is not known, but it does not mean "eaters of raw meat", and it is not pejorative. That would be what you call a myth. That it is a myth is a simple fact, determined by the linguistic community, and apparently not shared adequately with Wikipedia editors, who apparently lack the ability to do a simple google search.

--"Esquimaux" is not a French word. The French word for Eskimo is Esquimau. This is completely irrelevant to this article. There are two possible (direct) origins for Eskimo. One is indeed the MIDDLE FRENCH word "Esquimaux", the other is the Danish word "Eskimo". Guess which one my money is on. In any case, it's pretty obvious to anyone besides possibly head-up-their-cultural-asses Canadians that not all of Wikipedia's readers care how to say a word in French, especially when the word is identical to "eskimo" in languages as far-flung as Bahasa Indonesia and Romanian. So the current phrasing needs changed.

--The question as to whether Western Aleuts or even Alutiqs are Eskimos (or Yupiks) is a matter of debate, and should be treated as such at every turn. To do otherwise is grossly unfair to these peoples, who are already severely marginalized by the effects of culture wars and dark colonial histories. The whole article should be edited to reflect this.

--The actions of various indigenous groups (mostly in Canada) and their allies in the 1970s to politicize the issue of the putative "pejorative" nature of the word "Eskimo" was based almost entirely upon a lie: that the word means "eaters of raw meat." Please see: Ives Goddard in Handbook of North American Indians (Smithsonian, 1984), vol. 5, p. 5-7. Even if it were linguistically pejorative, it has never in its entire history been used in that way. Even if had once been used that way, many words referring to many peoples throughout time have been originally pejorative, because the names, like "inuit", people give to themselves usually just mean "people," and therefore are fairly boring I would guess. In any case, there is very little justification for attacking science for not using sufficiently politically correct terms in a case like this, because one of the aims/responsibilities of science (and Wikipedia, in fact) should be to be accessible to all, which generally means using the most widely known words possible. So it may indeed be "considered" a pejorative term, but it is considered so wrongly and with out much consideration of the facts, and that is not an encyclopedic piece of information. The word "Considered" should be changed to "thought", and it does not belong in the opening sentence. And, really, it should have (erroneously) written after it, because it is only pejorative if you are looking for something to be offended over, and get ready to be offended by a wide variety of people in over a hundred countries speaking all kinds of different languages. Yes, Canada can remove the word "Eskimo" from its legal vocabulary, and not a bad idea either-- it is a vague term, no one ever argued with that. But that will not stop a young Inuit from Canada from going to foreign countries, and speaking with people who know what an Eskimo is, and there is truly no reason to be offended by the term, unless Wikipedia says it is offensive, and then it is Wikipedia that is responsible for the offence.

--Last but definitely not least, "Inupiaq-Yupik" will never be accepted instead of Eskimo in Alaska, let alone the world. Period, full stop, no way in hell. More to the point, the phrases "inuit-yupik" and "inupiat-yupik" were, as far as I can tell, proposed by exactly one out-of-his-gourd, egotistical Wikipedia editor, and not by any qualified source. Nothing I found even uses these words besides the Wikipedia article, and, suspiciously said person on this Talk page. There is not even a fake citation for this ridiculous statement. These terms make no logical sense upon reflection that there are decidedly other groups, notably the alutiq and the aleuts from above, and the Sireniki Eskimos in Siberia who are all arguably Eskimo and are all (definitively or not definitively, but...) arguably, not Yupik.

Deliberately obscuring the facts is lying, folks, and lying on Wikipedia is a lot worse than regular lying, so please wake up and think about what you are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you seem to be missing an important point. Wikipedia is not saying that Eskimo is pejorative but simply report that sources, Definition of Eskimo in English, Free Dictionary, Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use? for examples, say it is considered so. By the way, the first link I listed says Esquimaux is the French word and the French Wikipedia has it at that title, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquimaux, with Esquimau as a redirect. Frankly if you had approached this in a more collaborative manner instead of putting in your unsourced opinion, "There has been some unfortunate confusion in the message...", removing sources, using sockpuppets/meatpuppets I for one would have had some agreement with your position. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What is needed is some more reading up on the topic...we could add the sources below so that our readers can see the background(s). like = "The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usage. " -- Moxy (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the 1978 Handbook wouldn't address 21st-century perspectives. The Nuttall reference I used is online and linked in the "references" section. CambridgeBayWeather's reinsertion of the caveat that not everyone sees the word as pejorative clears up a lot (I did a close re-reading of WP:weasel; this doesn't fall under that at all). The etymology is clear, well-cited, and has been in the article consistently for years, so that's not a problem. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Agree 1978 is old but does show that its an old problem that most would be aware of if they researched the topic. And yes CambridgeBayWeather wording is great ....thus all is fine. -- Moxy (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, rather than patting each other on the back prematurely, let's at least try to be honest: you have not addressed my legitimate concerns about this article. The fact that you do not like the way I expressed them is irrelevant to the article itself, and believe me I do not appreciate the way you tried to waste my time by wholesale reversing my edits either.  Telling me that "you would have agreed with me if..." is pretty much just a way to agree that the article is crap without doing anything about it.  Let me re-cap:
 * Unfortunately the 1978 Handbook wouldn't address 21st-century perspectives. The Nuttall reference I used is online and linked in the "references" section. CambridgeBayWeather's reinsertion of the caveat that not everyone sees the word as pejorative clears up a lot (I did a close re-reading of WP:weasel; this doesn't fall under that at all). The etymology is clear, well-cited, and has been in the article consistently for years, so that's not a problem. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Agree 1978 is old but does show that its an old problem that most would be aware of if they researched the topic. And yes CambridgeBayWeather wording is great ....thus all is fine. -- Moxy (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, rather than patting each other on the back prematurely, let's at least try to be honest: you have not addressed my legitimate concerns about this article. The fact that you do not like the way I expressed them is irrelevant to the article itself, and believe me I do not appreciate the way you tried to waste my time by wholesale reversing my edits either.  Telling me that "you would have agreed with me if..." is pretty much just a way to agree that the article is crap without doing anything about it.  Let me re-cap:

(1) Both possible European roots of the etymology should be included if the the French is going to be, and until given better evidence I'm afraid I'd have to dispute that spelling without the adjective "middle", which should be there anyway if it is an etymological specification. I think "Esquimaux" is probably now considered to be one of the plural forms of the word, which resolves that aspect of the dispute. We are not(presumably?) looking for plural here. Also, again, etymological specification, so should be clear where it is coming from. (2)I actually do agree, to clarify, that the CambridgeBayWeather's wording is better than the previous version, but the references are still crap, and you haven't addressed that in any, way shape of form. Perhaps more importantly, to be balanced in approach, and thus to be encyclopedic, while still keeping the current wording, you would have to add something like "in spite of etymological research suggesting otherwise (/that this is without reason)". It also needs something regarding how there are plenty of people, who with their words and actions indicate that it is not only non-pejorative, but a fundamentally useful and (currently) necessary word. And what you have then is a very long, klunky title sentence. So the "pejorative" statement needs removed from the title, because as is, it still presents an unbalanced view. (3) I shall re-phrase this point as a question: why and how did the thought of one Wikipedia editor on the subject of the (made-up, useless, irrational) terms "inuit-yupik" and "inupiat-yupik" become encyclopedic? (4)I repeat that the article, as it is currently written, is unfair in its wording towards the Aleut, Alutiq, and Sirenki peoples, and I fail to understand why this problem has not been addressed, unless people are being deliberately lazy, or are just trying to keep up an ongoing power struggle, the motivations for which I am not fully acquainted. You have successfully blocked me from doing anything on the site because I don't always play by your rules (though I agree those rules have their place), and am not a member of your little clique of editors. So please, in all good conscience, do something yourselves and edit the article to reflect the facts, such that at least Wikipedia, on the subject of "Eskimo", is not deliberately spreading misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to add one additional point: the three sources listed by CambridgeBayWeather...

Definition of Eskimo in English, Free Dictionary, Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?... ARE NOT BEING USED as references for the "pejorative" declaration, and they are all indeed balanced, legitimate sources, and you'll note that not a single one of them has "Eskimo, a term considered by many to be pejorative", or anything of the sort, in its opening line!!! There is a reason for that. Now please change the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup of lead
User:Montanabw reverted an edit I made, giving this summary:
 * This version more solid and clearly sourced, restore material removed without adequate explanation.

(Technically, three edits were reverted, but one was a simple grammar fix, and the other was a complaint about weasel words, which I tried to address.) I'd like to contest this description and present the case for my edits—providing the adequate explanation that Montanabw sought.
 * I removed "widely considered to be pejorative" from the opening sentence, and added the following later in that paragraph:
 * The term has largely been supplanted by "Inuit" in Canada and Greenland, partly because of perceived pejorative connotations; however, "Eskimo" is broader, including both the Inuit and the Yupik peoples. For this reason, "Eskimo" remains in use, particularly in Alaska.
 * I think it's worth noting that the source cited in the first paragraph (a webpage titled "Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?") works better after this addition than after the material before it, which is merely an explanation of what "Eskimo" means. The source backs up the entire paragraph (as amended by me).


 * I removed the following text; the "alternate terms" part is not cited (neither here nor later in the article), and the rest is covered by my previous addition and by a later paragraph of the lead.
 * Alternate terms, Inuit–Yupik (for Alaska: Inupiat–Yupik) have been proposed. Two main groups have historically been referred to as Eskimos by outsiders: the Yupik and Inuit, especially the Inupiat of Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, is related.
 * I changed 'It [Aleut] is largely considered a non-Eskimo culture.' to '...and is generally not included in the "Eskimo" designation.' A more pleasingly styled, weasel-free choice of phrasing, I thought.
 * I deleted the following two paragraphs, which I felt made the lead too long, and were redundant with earlier material anyway. The second of these paragraphs even reused the same citation as the lead's first paragraph.
 * The two main people known as Eskimo are the Inuit of northern Alaska, Canada, and Greenland, and the Yupik of Central Alaska and Siberia. The Yupik comprise speakers of four distinct Yupik languages: one originated in the Russian Far East, and the others among the descendants of people who had migrated in western Alaska, South Central Alaska, and along the Gulf of Alaska coast.
 * The term "Eskimo" is still in use, particularly in Alaska, to include both Yupik and Inupiat. In Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" has fallen out of favour, as it is sometimes considered pejorative and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit," "Alaskan nativess," or other terms.
 * Finally, I deleted this paragraph, which I felt was irrelevant to the topic at hand, as it's only about the Inuit of Canada, not any other group nor any other country.
 * The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, sections 25 and 35 recognized the Inuit as a distinctive group of aboriginal peoples in Canada.
 * As this contained the only citations that I actually deleted outright, I gather this was what Montanabw objected to when calling the earlier version "more clearly sourced".

So to address the specifics of Montanabw's objections (per edit summary): I think my version is just as "solid", or more so. I believe it's better styled, crams less into the lead, and yet sacrifices only repetitious or irrelevant material. It is no less "clearly sourced", as I have noted, and I hope this serves as "adequate explanation" for my changes. Upon reflection, I stand by my changes, and would only amend one thing: including mention of "Alaska Natives" as an alternative term in the first paragraph. -- Perey (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You clearly didn't just live through the drama above that just closed. Otherwise, you'd understand that these ideas were considered but not settled.  "Eskimo" IS widely perceived to be perjorative and that's indisputable.  It may be tolerated more in Alaska due to any number of factors, but when there are people who are going to be - legitimately - insulted by a work, it's important not to bury the fact.  As for the rest, I'm pretty much done dealing with this article, I have other areas of concern.  User:Uyvsdi may be able to give you a better sense of the status of your remaining questions.   Montanabw (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just provided citations for the fact that "Eskimo" is considered pejorative. Even the Lawrence Kaplan article, which I've used as a reference elsewhere, says that although the word is used, "this name is considered derogatory." The implication of WP:weasel is incorrect in this case—"to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made"—because the references come out and explicitly say the term is considered "derogatory" and "pejorative." Ethnologue is always a good, objective source in cases like this. I agree that "Alaska Natives" should be linked in the beginning paragraph, although it refers to a different group of indigenous peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I also support deleting the last three paragraphs of the introductory section because the second and third to the last are both redundant and the third is not necessary for the introduction to the term "Eskimo." -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Apparently I've given the impression that I want to not say that "Eskimo" is pejorative, or that I disagree that it's "considered" pejorative. That's not at all what I meant! Calling it a pejorative is entirely correct and (as you say) supported by the existing citation. I only wanted to move mention of that fact into the second rather than the first sentence, purely for reasons of style. Also for reasons of style, I wanted to avoid the weasel words "widely/largely considered". Now, as WP:WEASEL says, these aren't necessarily weasel words, but I want them gone anyway: there is absolutely no reason to put anything in front of "considered", and that being the case, putting something there makes it sound like a weasel even if it's technically not. "Considered" by itself is just fine, and perhaps my choice to replace it with "perceived" was, err, ill-considered. ;) -- Perey (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure take out "widely" and the last three paragraphs of the introduction. I believe the pejorative comment should remain in the initial sentence, because there are other terms for everyone of these ethnic groups, and the Canadian perspective should be taken into account since this is the English language Wikipedia, not US. Also am adding Athabaskan peoples under Alaska Natives. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Eskimo (or Esquimaux ) is a term, considered to be pejorative, for the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland. Alternate terms, Inuit–Yupik (for Alaska: Inupiat–Yupik) have been proposed. Two main groups have historically been referred to as Eskimos by outsiders: the Yupik and Inuit, especially the Iñupiat of Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, is related. The term "Alaska Natives" refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska, including Northwest Coast and Athabaskan tribes.


 * Okay, it's been eight days since anything's happened with this discussion. I'm going to restore my intro paragraph, that has been removed twice by Perey — with the discussed edits. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Well, to be fair, that's what I thought I'd done: restored an intro paragraph with agreed changes. (I never set out to remove your version of the intro paragraph.) It seems the one matter of substance (as opposed to style: choices of phrasing, etc.) that was still not agreed upon was the question of where to put "considered pejorative". You, Uyvsdi, if I've understood rightly, wanted it in the first sentence because you think it's that important. I wanted it in the second sentence (but still in the first paragraph). That's purely because I thought structuring the paragraph that way (short definition, then pejorative status, then explanation of continued usage) was more readable. But as your concerns are about inclusivity and mine are merely editorial, I bow to your stronger convictions on the matter. Accordingly, I also concede to your choice of wording. -- Perey (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * More citations such as CambridgeBayWeather posted below can be added, to flesh out the non- The article definitely can be improved, but it seems fine to wait to revamp it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi