Talk:Eskimo/Archive 5

Etymology in lead
removed "netter of snowshoes" not what sources says....best get an academic source for this. - 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This was originally correctly cited, which Fatbatsat incorrectly changed. I have since corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Best leave etymology for the body....Inuit and snowshoes ?....best use modern academic source for this. . Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is one of historical linguistics which is a bit outside the scope of the book. I can't find any more recent academic sources specifically discussing the etymology, though eaters of raw meat/fish seems discredited. I'm sorry about being frustrated, this dispute about the lead has gone on for weeks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Language Arts & Disciplines" is off topic?....anywas "the etymological problem is still unresolved" in the academic community, ...and is what we in Canada have taught our children for decades We should not pick one for the lead sentence as per MOS:BEGIN, WP:WEIGHT , MOS:FIRST =  because there is a clear debate on its origins. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I've gone and reverted everything, including Fatbatsat's edits, and changed the etymology to uncertain. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can't use out of date sources to justify something that isn't true and disagrees with all available modern references-- the etymology isn't uncertain, that's colonial science and colonial editing.Fatbatsat (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * encyclopedia.com is not a good source.... could you review Reliable sources....we need real sources WP:RS/AC. Its concerning that thus far with all the talks above not one academic or peer-reviewed publication has been presented other then mine.... pls readup on the topic.....no change since the 80s. Plus it should say "a person who laces a snowshoe" .....this as of now is all wrong not following one of the real sources by academics presented below. Article should be restored to before the  encyclopedia.com addition. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 10:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears from the references given that the snowshoe explanation may not be correct. I always found it a bit suspect due to Inuit not using snowshoes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moxy, I literally just put the old source back in. There are a thousand others, and a simple google search will reveal that, so don't be throwing the book at me please.  The articles that you are calling academic are, again, all out of date, except the Patrick 2013 source, which is complete BS on etymology.  First, all the sources cited by Patrick are waaaaay out of date-- in addition to the idea that "because it has been taught in Canada for a while" is a justification, do you also expect us to believe that no one has published a paper on this in 30 years?  Even you should know that that is a reach.  Second, partly by way of justification, Patrick says that "the Inuit did not use snowshoes."  Let's just start with the fact that it is clearly a term used to refer to people to the north, not an exact exonym for people in the exact part of Canada where CambridgeBayWeather lives.  And then, the idea that Inuit peoples did not use snoeshoes is, of course, ludicrous.  The word for snoweshoe, tangluk or tagluk or whatever variation, is common to many Yupik and Inuit peoples.  Of course, where there is not much in the way of snow in the farthest north places, people don't typically use snoeshoes.  But we're talking about migratory people here, and you bet even your eastern Inuit folks historically had a very good idea of what a snoeshoe was.
 * CambridgeBayWeather, no, the snoeshoe etymology is as correct a one as is available, and if that level of surety is good enough for the discipline of linguistics, it needs to be good enough for Wikipedia. The only other suppposedly likely etymology traces back to exactly one source, which was long enough ago that he could get away with, according to later sources, stating the idea without proof.  There's a colonialist-"science"-origin pervasive urban mythology around "eaters of raw meat" and you can't just skirt around that.  I'll see if I can can dig up some more academic or better referenced sources (they're well buried), but the burden of proof is still on people who clearly disagree with the vast majority of linguists.Fatbatsat (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We should simply state what the source say in the lead and explain in the body......"A variety of theories have been postulated for the etymological origin of the word Eskimo"......that its origin is not fully certain. We cant change history because it may be offensive. We need to educate our readers on the dubious origins be they right or wrong and the different translations......Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different  etymologies. So what can we do? Trust your opnion or fallow the sources presented...that i note again have not advanced since the 80'. At this point can we get you to propose any changes you wish to make to the article here first for a review by other so we can avoid more editwars over your changes as your attempts to whitewash the dubious etymology including as an IP prior to making an account   is not a good thing .....pls review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Advocacy. . Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Change to Lead Paragraphs
Hi, I've made some changes to the article in attempt to address the above recently discussed concerns while not tearing apart the integrity of the article. Please let me know what you think!!! Fatbatsat (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am happy for the first paragraph to be a place holder till the above discussion is concluded, although if others disagree I am on their side as you are being a bit bold. "Nonetheless, the word has no exact synonym, so conceptual replacement remains a conundrum" this is breaking the fourth wall in a way we typically do not do, it reads like original research even if it is not. See MOS:INSTRUCT for the vibe of what I am trying to say. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These changes are definitely a positive move, in my opinion. I agree with Dushan Jugum that the "no exact synonym" sentence does have a fourth-wall-breaking feel to it, but I'm still turning it over in my head to figure out what the best alternative phrasing might be. For the time being, I've just removed the line break between the first two paragraphs, as I felt that the lead flows better when they're combined. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your continual reverts were the whole reason the RfC had to opened in the first place. The edits do not address the substance of why people prefer "Option B", and therefore should be rejected. The clear consensus is against your opinion. Nobody but you has suggested option "A", as the best option. Option B is not "tearing apart the integrity of the article", the clear consensus is currently for option B, and I see no reason to compromise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia, let me suggest to you this thought: the truth is not a compromise. In editing, I was trying to help, because you asked for my opinion. This RfC did *not* have to be opened, you opened it as a proxy for rational debate, solely because you refused to communicate, instead first engaging in an edit war and blaming me for it, then forcing a vote of whoever happened to be wandering by. That's democracy only in a limited sense-- it's called mob rule, friend. Again, I absolutely never said option A was perfect, just that your edits don't represent an improvement, and I've said why, which no one has bothered to refute.  More than one person *has* said your edit is not a great idea, and zero people, including yourself, have  bothered to offer substantial arguments for it.  I think there was some merit in your suggestion though, so at this point I'm genuinely interested to see how this goes. Fatbatsat (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fatbatsat, Consensus is a core policy of the encyclopedia, read it fully. Describing trying to get the opinion of other uninvolved editors, who have unanimously disagreed with you, as "mob rule" is frankly just absurd. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I'm somewhat confused as to why these changes were reverted. I can understand that, procedurally, it could be troublesome to change the lead while there's an ongoing RfC - but the changes that Fatbatsat made did move the lead in the direction of the current consensus. The usage of "Eskimo... refers to" in the first sentence helps convey that this article is foremost about the term "Eskimo" (even if it doesn't call it a "term" explicitly), and that was the crux of the difference proposed in Option B. By moving "Many... consider the term unacceptable" to an earlier position, the edit also helps to foreground the consideration of the word's reception, which was another frequently mentioned point in the RfC. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reverts to the lead were mostly due to Moxy's objections to the etymology section. I felt it was just easier to revert and be done with it. I also felt that the lead changes were jumbled, as they did not clearly define "Yupik" or "Inuit" before invoking the terms, which was confusing to a reader. I think the RfC should be closed before any other major changes are made to the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The lead
The first two sentences of the article should read either as A (current version) or B (new version).

"Eskimo or Eskimos are the indigenous circumpolar peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland.
 * A (current version):

The two main peoples known as Eskimo are the Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Inuit peoples of Canada) and the Yupik (or "Yuit") of eastern Siberia and Alaska. A third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands are closely related to both, but are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family."

"Eskimo or Eskimos is a term used to refer to two closely related Indigenous peoples: The Inuit (including the Alaskan Iñupiat, the Greenlandic Inuit, and the Canadian Inuit) and the Yupik (or Yuit) of eastern Siberia and Alaska. A related third group, the Aleut, which inhabit the Aleutian Islands, are generally excluded from the definition of Eskimo. The three groups share a relatively recent common ancestor, and speak related languages belonging to the Eskimo–Aleut language family.
 * B (new version):

These circumpolar peoples have traditionally inhabited the Arctic and subarctic regions from eastern Siberia (Russia) to Alaska (United States), Northern Canada, Nunavik, Nunatsiavut, and Greenland."

Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * B The fact that Eskimo is widely considered offensive aside, It should be immediately clear to the reader how the term "Eskimo" differs from the more popular "Inuit", as measured by article view counts |Eskimo. I don't care much for the second sentence of the new version, as it repeats the geographical information of the first paragraph. I also don't like the original's first sentence due to the fact that it implies that the people referred to as "Eskimo" are the sole inhabitants of the circumpolar region described, when this region is also occupied by other circumpolar peoples, such as the Chukotko-Kamchatkan peoples like the Chuckchi. 20:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)
 * B As above, don't make we write why for the 5th time. If this change is the first step or the last it is an improvement and that is good. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither. The article should be about the term, not the people, and that's what is being discussed above. If the discussion in the section above becomes consensus then the lead would need to be rewritten again. Look at other ethnic slurs for people. They don't start by saying who the slur is about but but that it is a slur. It's currently only in the third paragraph that it says that the word is "unacceptable". It's more than unacceptable but not at the level of the N word.
 * By the way it should be "Eskimo (plural: Eskimos)". The plural isn't an alternate for the singular.
 * I think I'm misunderstanding "It should be immediately clear to the reader how the term "Eskimo" differs from the more popular "Inuit", as measured by article view counts". The reader won't see the view counts so I'm not sure how that applies. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a tricky issue, while Eskimo is considered offensive (slur is stronger than I have seen it described in most places), it also has a wide useage in academia and other places. As to the search interest, I was trying to illustrate relative search interest, not that viewers would literally look at the view count. When I look at google trends, I get the opposite result It seems globally that "Eskimo" is a more familiar term than "Inuit". Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am also considering opening a 2nd RfC on the scope of this article once this vote has concluded. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why bother with a 2nd RfC, out of curiosity? It seems like this one and the discussion above both have a fairly clear consensus that the scope should be altered to refer to the term. Turnagra (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't we just have a little incremental improvement on the side while we discuss larger changes. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with . B is the better of the two options, but we should be upfront about it being a slur, and instead of messing around with specific wording on the lead we should be getting on with refining the scope of the article to be about the term specifically instead of still using it as an article for groups which have other articles at more fitting titles already. Turnagra (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I see it as insurance in case the page move does not go through. Nothing is lost by approving this change if you think it is better. If we wanted to change a misspelling would you say "don't change it yet I want the page moved". Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * B. While "Eskimo" is notable as a term, changing to B would better reflect the current understanding of its meaning and connotations, whereas A would continue to treat it as a legitimate ethnic descriptor. (I agree with CambridgeBayWeather and Turnagra that the overall article should be streamlined to focus on the term, but - as Dushan Jugum mentions - this proposed change is still an improvement, and can be accomplished while we're still figuring out the consensus on the broader issue.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B is better than A, as this article should be about the term and the first paragraph of the lead should mention its offensive nature.VR talk 16:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B is fine- The term "Eskimo" is still used by Iñupiat and Yupik peoples inside Alaska to describe themselves. In fact, some Iñupiat would take more offense at being called Inuit than Eskimo like some Natives in the lower states take offense to being called Native American over American Indian with the opposite also being true. Regardless, it is hardly the offensive slur in Alaska that it is in other Inuit communities outside Alaska. -- A Rose  Wolf  20:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . The source in the article, Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use? disagrees that Alaska Natives prefer Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not how I read the source, please check yourself CambridgeBayWeather, you're missing something very fundamental here. Fatbatsat (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I have lived in Alaska for the majority of my life and I have dealt with Native populations inside Alaska for nearly the entirety of that time. If you asked a thousand Native's which one or if they even preferred either name you would probably get a thousand slightly different responses. As I stated previously, if a source uses Eskimo then that is what should be used, if it uses Inuit then use that. I'm saying, from personal experience, that the term is not as much a slur in this state as it may be in other places. You are, of course, entitled to believe anything you want and whatever sources you want. I just feel like calling it a slur without acknowledging that some Native Alaskans don't see it that way is doing a disservice to the general reader and giving the false impression that every Inupiat and Yupik person living in Alaska feels that way. Eskimo is used in many tribal names for various organizations here in Alaska like the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission which is made up of both Inupiat and Siberian Yupik Eskimos, as they call themselves, living in coastal communities in Alaska. -- A Rose Wolf  14:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've lived in the Arctic, mainly Victoria Island (Canada) since 1974 and I could tell you lots of things. But in the end it isn't what either of us say or believe but what the sources say. And that's what the article currently says. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just it, you're reading the article, and that's literally not what it says.Fatbatsat (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not opposed to the current language in the article or the sources provided for the article. I believe it presents a neutral tone. I also think option B for the lede maintains that neutrality while modernizing the wording but the differences are so negligible I wouldn't be opposed to either option. -- A Rose Wolf  14:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither per CambridgeBayWeather.  oncamera (talk page)  07:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B is more appropiate. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither per CambridgeBayWeather. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Hemiauchenia. Also change the way the plural is formatted. --Spekkios (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
, given your strong support for option "A" in previous discussions, would you like to make your case here? Also pinging participants of the NPOVN discussion, ,. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think B is somewhat better than A. Dowobeha (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The article itself, should be re-directed to Inuit. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't. Eskimo was/is used to refer to more than one group of people. Plus it's a slur and we don't normally redirect slurs to the people it is used against. We have articles about Fenian, Sheep shagger, Gook and so on that don't redirect to the people concerned. Plus I think this is in the wrong section. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that we can agree. It should not redirect to Inuit. The term does represent multiple groups. Also, because it is considered a slur by some number of individuals within the community it is best to leave it as a stand alone article detailing as much about the term as is possible to do so without disenfranchising either side of the debate. -- A Rose  Wolf  14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it ranges from what some people consider a slur almost as bad as n-word to mildly derogatory. Some Elders in Canada still use Eskimo to refer to themselves. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I know some who are just indifferent to any of it. I have visited with the Nunamiut people in Anaktuvuk a few times a year for the last year or two. They have used Eskimo when talking about those outside their immediate community and most just don't pay attention to the outside forces debating over its use, including those in the larger Inuit community. In the end they will continue using it no matter what Wikipedia or anyone else says so it's really not of import. They are more concerned about the migration of the caribou herds than anything discussed on Wikipedia or in the social justice circles of academia. I assume that's probably the case with the majority of communities. -- A Rose Wolf  14:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (and all) thank you for sharing here. Again, I never said the current version is perfect, just that I think that it represents consensus, built up over years, and I think changing it, among other things, might affect the stability of the article, basically due to the reasons CambridgeBayWeather has pointed out, though I would probably disagree with his other conclusions. And, yes, I do believe it is better than option_B.  So I'd like to select option C please: change it, but, again, justify the change (a bilateral argument on a multilateral subject still isn't exactly a justification, though the thought and effort is appreciated all around I'm sure), and consider at least the below information:
 * I don't think "a term used to refer" is good language to use here. It's not "a term used", it's a definition; and, as it has no synonym, it is not even "a term", but "the term".  Anything else leans toward deliberate misninformation. Either the usage in option_B points at a NNPOV (in this case the viewpoint that people using the word "Eskimo" are committing some sort of clear and deliberate infraction, which is not the case), or it is simply clunky language.  I believe common practice on Wikipedia and elsewhere, in order to maintain both neutrality and clarity, is to simply use the word "refers".  And that's accurate, because I agree with Hemiauchenia, just throwing out "Eskimos are" makes i sound like the debate is closed.  And it isn't.  omg it isn't.  *wallbash*.
 * "Circumpolar" is not a hill I want to die on-- it's a word that frustrates me as well. It's vague, but people immediately know what it means, so 50-50. However, I think it is better to not change it than to change it, if you'll catch my drift, and here is why: both the Aleut (Unangan) people and the Chukchi are severely marginalized peoples, or at least historically so, and arguably very much so today as well, much more than Inuit or Yupik peoples if anyone cared to put a number on such things, which I don't. It is helpful, objectively and provably, to be part of, if not a group, a global not-invisible "caucus", if you will.  Both are closely related (Unangan more so) to the Inuit/Yupik folks, and both have been referred to as "Eskimo" quite a lot.  To leave them out of an article entirely or to go out of your way to say "these [circumpolar-ish] people aren't Eskimos" in a direct manner, both directly and indirectly risks marginalizing them further-- you leave them out of the scope of public attention (writing them out) that they both need and are due from the other peoples of the world.  That's not to say the article should say "these people are eskimos"-- they're not usually considered thus by informed people-- but it's frankly a bit of a grey area, both genetically and lingusitically, and the lead of the article should reflect that.  People have ranted on and on about how Eskimo is "offensive" without understanding the impact of simply editing this word out of existence, andI frankly do feel they need to educate themselves a little better before wading in, but that *is* just my opinion.  The Sami people are circumpolar and also indigenous, in some sense, but they are pretty clearly *not* indigenous to the place where they currently live, so I'm not sure that a "Why did you just concentrate on Siberia, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland" (in circumpolarness) argument is fully vallid.  Anyway, it's complicated, but I think removal of the word "circumpolar" hurts more than it helps.
 * Plus, having studied the subject matter deeply, deliberately taking the word "circumpolar" out of the definition of the word "Eskimo" just seems dishonest... somehow elitist. Like I say, people know what "circumpolar" means, basically.  By and large, they have no clue what Eskimo" means, though they probably think they do, but hey, that is why there is a Wikipedia article.
 * No one has made an argument why "indignenous" is worse than "two closely related indigenous peoples", but many of the same arguments hold true as for circumpolar. To sum up, they are:
 * (1) People *do* use the word Eskimo as an endonym, and those people include not just Yupik and Inuit people, but also white locals, Chukchi, and Unangan. It's not a common thing, but it's not overly rare either.  Words mean different things to different people, and it makes sense to be accepting of that.  But I think the Unangan people, at least, would seriously object to being called not indigenous.
 * (2) People who use Eskimo as an exonym are either (A) old or old-fashioned (B) Scientists / Etymologists (C) people simply not well informed on the subject (the identity of northern peoples). And yet, folks in group (C), by speaking of the people of the frozen north in the same breath they are very seldom intending harm, and if they are bringing to attention marginalized people by doing so (any marginalized person of the group who is not an Inuit), so much the better. And they don't have an accurate synonym to use.  Meaning that there is no conflict with encyclopedic nature, and a humanitarian utility in not using exclusive wording to chuck out people on a whim.
 * (3) Unangan share a language group. Very key point, central to this whole debate.
 * I don't think I want to wade much further in on this, such quibbles have a way of eating up a lot of time, but I have to point out: if you're saying that Eskimo is sometimes considered offensive, you're definitely right. But sometimes is not always.  If you're saying it's a "slur", or "pejorative" or "derogatory", or if it means "Inuit", then you either don't know what any of those words mean, don't know what "Eskimo" means, or you are directly arguing from a NNPOV, because the established sources, many cited in the article, basically *all* agree that you are wrong.  If you don't believe me, then go back, read the article, check the references, read the references, and educate yourself.  If you will do that, you will learn that "unacceptable", is a direct quote from one of those sources, and *quite* applicable here, I assure you.  I don't love people calling me an American because I happen to hold a U.S. passport, but I'm a ways off yet from waging a PC-standpoint war to get the Wikipedia article on "Americans" changed to fit exactly to my particular worldview.  I'm saving that for January, at least :-P  Again, same word, different things to different people. Anyway, this particular horse has been beaten to death, resurrected, beaten to death again, and now, it seems, resurrected again, at least on the Wikipedia Talk page, where people love to argue :)  So please don't *start* out from such an assumption of universal offensiveness and assume no one is going to disagree with you.
 * Thanks for arguing, everybody, and thanks for your interest in this fascinating and important issue. Good luck, and happy editing of this article and many more!
 * Oh, and "traditionally inhabited makes sense to, because there are a *lot* of Inuit/Yupik people who do not live in circumpolar areas.
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Population
It says that there are 183,000 Inuit and Yupik people which was changed from 183,000 Eskimo. However, the sources don't add up. That's a total of 170,540. Where's the rest of the people? Even if that figure misses the Siberian Yupik it's only another 2,800. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Inuit population by residence inside or outside Inuit Nunangat, 2016 - 65,025
 * Greenland 89.5% of 57,799 is - 51,730
 * U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 PHC-T-18. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States: 2000 - ?
 * The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010 shows 24,858 Inupiat and 28,927 Yup'ik - 53,785
 * Overall, we estimated that there were about 1.13 million indigenous people in the northern regions of the 8 Member States of the Arctic Council. There were 8,100 Aleuts in Alaska and the Russian North; 32,400 Athabaskans in Alaska and northern Canada; 145,900 Inuit in Alaska, northern Canada and Greenland; 76,300 Sami in northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia; and 866,400 people in northern Russia belonging to other indigenous groups...... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 11:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's even less. That source says 145,900 and adding in the missing Siberian Yupik gives 148,700. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the report is about people that actually live in the area versus those who self-identify and do not live there....... problem with statistics Canada is that they count for everyone even those not living in the area..... we have 3rd Generation City dwellers still bring to themselves as Inuit which is fine cuz they are but they're not really part of the overall population of the North. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as being only about the people living in the north. As an example French people is not limited to people who live only in France. I've looked again at the statistics and the sentence. The sentence says "There are more than 183,000 Inuit and Yupik people throughout the Arctic, of which 135,000 or more live in or near the traditional circumpolar regions." The Arctic can be defined in more than one way but I think the most common is the area inside the Arctic Circle. We don't have a good map (File:FMIB 43941 Map showing treeless Regions around the North Pole.jpeg) of the tree line and I don't think many people look at it that way. We don't have an article on circumpolar lands but we do have one on circumpolar peoples. It shows that they live in an area inside and outside the Arctic Circle. So the circumpolar region would be larger than the Arctic but has less people. All three of the sources show people living outside of the Arctic and "traditional circumpolar regions". The Greenland stats include Nuuk (south of the Arctic Circle) and the United States stats are for the entire country excluding Puerto Rico. I think the sentence should read:
 * "There are between 171,000 and 187,000 Inuit and Yupik peoples, the majority of which live in or near their traditional circumpolar regions."
 * A section could then be added explaining the Denmark figures.
 * In looking this all up I found that according to List of communities in Nunavut there are 35,882 people. Of these 13,536 live in the Arctic and 22,346 live south of the Arctic Circle. Also according to some people the Arctic is defined as only the Arctic Ocean and there is no lands in the Arctic! CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your right Have you seen this? density we could also mention. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Inuit
There needs to be a recognition that Inuit is being used as a synonym of Eskimo today (and yes, including Yupik). Whether or not people agree with it, it is happening, and it needs to be acknowledged. 24.244.23.162 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The terms are not exact synonyms, the Yupik are not Inuit but are commonly considered to come under the "Eskimo" umbrella, this distinction is explained pretty clearly in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi User 24.244.23.162! I actually do think that the *way* many people are using the word is encyclopedic, to an extent, even if they are doing so out of ignorance / uninformed attempts to be PC.  However, I'm not sure if that is the point you are trying to make. In the Nomenclature section of the article, subsections "Inuit Circumpolar Council" and "academic response", what you're referring is discussed in some detail, actually.  Again, maybe I don't understand the point you are trying to make, but I do actually think this non-ignorance based aspects of this usage has been addressed.  If you disagree that this deals with your concern, would you care to elaborate why, and how you think the article should be edited to reflect this fact?  Thanks!!
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not clearly stated in the article, unfortunately. The impression in the article is that Inuit is never used as a synonym as Eskimo, when today it often is as a way to avoid the use the often derogatory Eskimo. Historically, Yupik people did not use Inuit as a synonym for Eskimo, but it's become increasingly common today. Here are two examples of prominent Yup'ik people introducing themselves as "Yup'ik Inuit", including a member of the band Pamyua. The aforementioned Inuit Circumpolar Council is another example with Inuit is used as an umbrella term. This is not "misguided" or "uninformed", it's been intentional over the last ten years in particular. There needs to be an acknowledgment in the introduction of this article that Inuit is being used more frequently as umbrella term and as a synonym of Eskimo, whether or not it is "correct". Naulagmi (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Related to husky
Really? "According to Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard, etymologically the word derives from the Innu-aimun (Montagnais) word ayas̆kimew, meaning 'a person who laces a snowshoe', and is related to husky (a breed of dog)."

However, the references numbered 1 to 3 do not mention "husky" at all. I borrowed Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 5 Arctic at the Internet Archive and it does mention "husky" on page 7. But it does not say what the sentence above says. It looks as if whalers and HBC workers used Huskemaw and not that it is related to Eskimo but may have derived from that. Perhaps someone else can check it out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this originates from a WP:CUCKOO edit. There are a couple of sources which historically link 'husky' to 'Eskimo', but this is unrelated to Goddard's proposed etymology for the latter. So we have another thing that needs to be disentangled. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The east coast sourced mention this. Like.. Moxy - 18:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it actually necessary to mention in the Etymology section that English 'Eskimo' is the etymological source of another English word? Quite interesting trivia, but a bit off-topic in this context. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC
 * I'm pretty sure it's not a Cukoo edit. The referincing on this article is just crap because people keep editing the article and not caring how they change references, or what references they use, so long as they can get their personal POV across.
 * The origin is along these lines: https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/The_Evolution_of_a_Word_Husky/ or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/husky#:~:text=shortening or https://www.lexico.com/definition/husky "Mid 19th century (originally denoting a Labrador Inuit): abbreviation of obsolete Ehuskemay or Newfoundland dialect Huskemaw ‘Eskimo’, probably from Montagnais (see Eskimo). The term replaced the 18th-century term Eskimo dog." Also see "Nunavut Generations: Change and Continuity in Canadian Inuit Communities, by Ann McElroy.
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Etymology NPOV Problem
Etymology section /entries suffers from Civil POV Pushing and Weasel Wording https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word.

Linguistic origin of the term "Eskimo" is "one who nets snowshoes", and the Wikipedia article as written is out of step with reality on this point. Any idiot with a keyboard and an internet connection can figure that out. This article has been subject to repeated sabotage based on outdated and never-well-founded personal viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.200.97 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death. Don't start again with this nonsense. It is disputed what the word means. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not weasel words when many do consider the term to be offensive. Many don't but many do. Both sides are discussed in reliable sources as has been presented. I agree with @CambridgeBayWeather here. This has been discussed multiple times and the consensus is that the article strikes a neutral tone. We may individually think it does / doesn't go far enough or even that it goes too far but one voice does not a consensus make. If you want to add to the article using reliable sources then I say go for it. But removing what is there just doesn't make sense. -- A Rose Wolf  16:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "neutral tone". You can't have a "neutral tone" between facts, on one hand, and someone blatantly trying to adjust the facts such that they reflect a cultural status quo.  And yes, CambridgeBayWeather, I put the blame squarely on you, because I happen to know that, apart from myself and otherwise very much alone among the other people editing here, you actually have some idea of the comedy of errors and cultural quagmire behind this whole issue, and yet instead of taking a principled stand for what you know to be accurate, you roll over to some insanely misbegotten sense of political correctness that aims at taking down established fact.  The etymology of the word is not disputed by etymologists.  Right now, Wikipedia is literally arguing with science, with every dictionary in existence outside of Canada, and with google, and its making asses of the 5 or 6 people who have been trying to BS on this article's talk page for the last year.  It's frankly hillarious.  But hillarity aside, the article needs to be re-revised to reflect reality.  So, sorry, it is not nonsense.Fatbatsat (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We cant change history because it may be offensive. We need to educate our readers on the dubious origins be they right or wrong and the different translations......Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different etymologies. So what can we do? Trust your opnion or fallow the sources presented...that i note again have not advanced since the 80'. At this point can we get you to propose any changes you wish to make to the article here first for a review by other so we can avoid more editwars over your changes as your attempts to whitewash the dubious etymology including as an IP prior to making an accoun  is not a good thing .....pls review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Advocacy. . Moxy - 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow that is the most poorly written, intellectually dilapidated joke of a sorry excuse to a reply to a Wikipeida talk post that I have ever seen, and I've seen some doozies. Your source is garbage.  Actually, Moxy, let me go back in time a bit a say that basically every source you have cited has been garbage.  What part of "that is not etymology" do you fail to understand?  Maybe it's the definition of the word "that"?  Or is "is" the part you are having problems with.  May I dare ask, have you ever met an etymologist?  Because I essentially grew up with two of them.  And, turns out, they're not usually idiots.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * II you have better sources then McGill-Queen's Press - Oxford University Press - McGill-Queen's Press pls bring them forward. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe actual peer-reviewed linguistics research? How about Ives Goddard's paper?  Maybe the several concurring papers from the 90s.  But no, you want me to go with the only other possible etymology, published 6 years before Goddard, and not confirmed by a single peer-reviewed work in 44 years.  Sure, completely logical. Definitely a worthy debate.Fatbatsat (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different etymologies. " <--- That is a straight-up lie and I think you know it.  Certainly, anyone who can read and click a weblink knows it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec x3) Noit sure what your saying Goddard is from 1984...not one source above is from before that? can you see this? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Goddard is 1984, and Jose Mailhot is 1978. And Mailhot might, in theory, have had some scientific standing, but no one ever published a corroborating paper, so consensus is with Goddard.  It's not a complicated issue, if you understand science, peer review, or scientific consensus, which you *very clearly* do not.103.252.200.145 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok so your just interested in one persons view over all others....have you seen this tlaking about his POV??? its by John Steckley Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the dubious claim should be left in the article. I may not agree with @Fatbatsat's approach to the matter but there is supporting evidence to what they say based on what I see. Granted, we aren't supposed to use other tertiary sources for notability, however, I believe the sheer number of sources which demonstrate the claim as being discredited or dubious warrants the inclusion of the template. I think very clearly there are those, especially among the Inuit communities of Canada and Greenland, that believe the word is offensive and that should not be removed from the article, not because they feel that way but because it is in reliable published sources. However, if the etymological claim has been refuted and discredited in multiple reliable sources and those sources can be provided then that too should be included. We can have an article with all of the viewpoints found in reliable sources which makes the article stronger in the sense of accuracy. If @Fatbatsat feels the sources others present are, in fact, "garbage" and they can make a compelling argument for their POV then I would encourage them to open a discussion at WP:RSN. -- A Rose Wolf  16:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, John Steckley's anti-historical linguistic POV is not a good a argument against Goddard and Mailhot. The idea that native speakers know better about the etymology of words in their own language than historical linguists is plainly rubbish; speakers know about meanings. It needs sources from the discipline of historical linguistics to comment on historical linguistic hypotheses. (I am a historical linguist, but not specialized in Algonquian languages, so I have no preference for any of the three etymologies mentioned in the subsection "Etymology".)

But the "correct" etymology of the term 'Eskimo' is irrelevant for the question of how the term is perceived by present-day Inuit and Yupik. The "eaters of raw flesh" etymology has been deeply ingrained in public discourse (even as a crossword clue) in many languages. It's actually not just the etymology that has caused offense, but the ubiquitous package of talking about "Eskimos" with the inevitable 'and, oh, did you know that it means "eaters of raw flesh"'. It is virtually impossible to find popular books, school textbooks etc. about Inuit that do not at some very early point mention the traditional etymology—either taken for granted in pre-2000 books, or as explanation for the pejorative connotation of the term in more recent publications.

So to say that Inuit and Yupik shouldn't be offended by the term because the etymology has been "debunked" (it hasn't!) betrays an alarming ignorance about the power of words in collective awareness, and a total disrespect towards emic viewpoints.

One thing we probably should do is to disentangle the two topics. The paragraph starting with "Some people consider Eskimo offensive..." should be moved down to "Usage". We could then just mention the "eaters of raw flesh" etymology in the "Etymology" subsection with sources that discuss its merit solely from the angle of historical linguistics and without any other axe to grind. –Austronesier (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We could split them out.....puzzled by "John Steckley's anti-historical linguistic POV" statement. ..find it very odd Canadian sources are being dismissed because of nationality. We have any sources for this POV. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean about "Canadian sources are being dismissed because of nationality". Is this directed at me? If it is, this needs to be rectified. It's not about "nationality", but about Steckley saying things like: 'This expert assumption that "I know more than you do about your own traditions" is one that anthropologists of all types, including linguistic anthropologists, have to be careful before making.' I don't dismiss the source as being from a Canadian, but as one that tries to evaluate historical linguistics through the emic-based paradigm of descriptive linguistics. We should avoid sources by apple experts trying to assess oranges. –Austronesier (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can see bellow ...hate on for Canada. As for John Steckley not sure why this Academic is being dismissed. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "But the "correct" etymology of the term 'Eskimo' is irrelevant for the question of how the term is perceived by present-day Inuit and Yupik."
 * That's incorrect, of course. Just because people might ignore it or tangentialize it in the short term does not mean that etymology is not key to interpretation/understanding/perception over the medium to long term.  And that's not the point-- removing relevant scientific facts from a Wikipedia article is censorship, so call it like it is.  And, yes, while there are a plethora of predominately Canadian populist sources (and, yes, they are almost all not just Canadian, but eastern Canadian specifically), clearly and deliberately refusing to revise what is a contra-scientific narrative, that doesn't mean the rest of the world, or the rest of the English Wikipedia, needs to be taking whatever they say as the gospel truth.  Even if... [and this is a very close paraphrase, if not a direct quote, because someone chose to prematurely archive the Talk page-- again!-- which is also a form of censorship]... even if Moxy "learned about it in school"! Seriously, come on people, do better.  Oh, let's see, sources... "The Canadian Encyclopedia", I mean, what an utter joke.  Sure, there's an American Enclyopedia, but only because American English is a recognized dialectic set.  Even the Chinese politburo has not put out a text they were so bold as to call "The Chinese Encyclopedia".
 * Oh, and Austronesier, this Talk sub-topic wasn't started to discuss the "Eaters of Raw Flesh" myth, and that's because even the editors here, who mostly don't seem to care what the facts are, are by and large completely unable to deny that it is a myth based on a thoroughly discredited etymology. They're still willing to censor and weasel-word to death based on a lie, but that's not the point.  And what you're saying in a nice way is, well, take that a step further, basically: that Wikipedia should go right ahead and *perpetuate* what we all know to be a lie.  And that, for any reason, I disagree.Fatbatsat (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "So to say that Inuit and Yupik shouldn't be offended by the term because the etymology has been "debunked" (it hasn't!)"
 * Yes, yes it has. You are not the one who gets to decide that.  And scientific consensus has long ago spoken on this issue. If you refuse to read the peer reviewed-research in linguistics, and you also refuse to believe internationally accepted layman's sources who themselves have evaluated that research (though I admit that that's tricky as they tend to switch every 2 years or so due to balancing popular pressure against science, not unlike Wikipedia itself), there's really not much that can be done for you besides eject you from the forum.  Which, at this point is what I am advocating for: for all editors who will not accept the correct etymology of the word to be banned from editing this article. Try that on for censorship, you liars.Fatbatsat (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AVOIDYOU ...WP:FINDSOURCESFORME. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

. You need to stop with the false accusations of censorship. Nobody is trying to remove the snowshoe netters meaning. However, at the same time you can't remove the raw meat eater meaning either, nor the idea that many Inuit find Eskimo offensive. If it's not found to be offensive then why did the Edmonton Elks change their name? A lot of Inuit still believe the raw meat eater translation over snowshoe netter for a simple reason. Inuit don't use snowshoes. Goddard says the Innu (Montagnais) may have used a word for netting snowshoes for the Algonquin people before contacting the Inuit. Goddard also states that in North Shore Montagnais and Algonquin Eastern Ojibwa words are related to "eating raw". Just because the raw meat eateris wrong does not justify its removal from the article and we don't remove all mentions of the Flat Earth and those who believe in it, even though it is discredited. This is an article about people and will not, can not, consist entirely of scientific facts.

What I think is accurate is that a lot of Inuit, including some Alaskans, think that Eskimo is offensive and that a number of Inuit still believe that it means eaters of raw meat. I also think it is accurate that some Inuit are not offended by being called an Eskimo and believe it means snowshoe netter. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Look, you are basically right about my attitude, and I'm sorry I got frustrated with you guys. Difficulties in my personal life.  But also, editing this article is uniquely frustrating.  I know you have the article's best interest at heart, as I do.  The fact is that you are simply mistaken, and the parts of the issue which we are discussing are indeed vague, difficult to be definitive about, confusing, whatever adjective you like.  But still, there is a facts-based perspective here, and a humanistic one.  I think you're a little off on the facts, and I don't think the humanistic perspective conflicts with the facts in this case, rather to the contrary.
 * Still, are we really going to devolve this to a discussion about the Edmonton Eskimos-->Elks? Total red herring, that. Are the (solid, I agree, in this case-- though I don't like to generalize by geography, Edmonton is a ways off from the country of the Innuvialuit, and naming your sports team by ethnicity is a poor choice at the best of times) decisions of sports teams and name-brands now what we should hinge our arguments on?  Perhaps I should counter that there is a guy of Yupik (and I think also Inupiaq?) origin on the "American Ninja" television show who very definitively markets himself as "The Eskimo Ninja".  No, honestly, how mundain and mob-like can we get in our arguments. Facts are certainly not the only thing that is relevant, as they are by themselves, by definition, trivial.  There is good reason, however, especially on matters where emotions run high, to apply logic to the judicious *use* of facts in writing a good encylopedia article.
 * "Inuit don't use snowshoes" is not correct. I do know you have a source which claims that; I read it already, multiple times. I have also explained why it is not correct, probably more than once?  And that source, and that incorrect arugment, is your best argument, you are right.  But since that premise is wrong, the argument is wrong.  Kind of underscores how you guys are over-acedmizing (academic-ize, if you must) the article, not under-academizing it in the service of justice as you are tacitly claiming. And the difficulty stems to the definition of Inuit, which relates, somehow, to the definition of Eskimo.  And not to put too fine a point on it, in a more modern context, the way you are putting it right here is more than a little bit culturally insensitive to boot-- I know where you are coming from, but please bear in mind that regardless of how you are using the term, the "Inuit" are a real people, a real group of peoples, or a real group of group of peoples, not a hypothetical one.  *That* word even means "the real people".  I'm not going to go into another public history/culture lessson on snoeshoes and geographical distributions of peiple who have been called Eskimo or Inuit, as I know you are aware of many of the issues surrounding this question.
 * But let's see if we can break this down. The lead section currently says that the etymology is "disputed".  That is not true, and I'm unable to find a source to corroborate.  That word was either put in there by Moxy (let us say that it was in haste) or by someone who *really* did not know what they were talking about.  Your actual vallid case, and Moxy's, is that the etymology is "unclear", which is also untrue, but it is at least a referenced statement.  So let us instead restrict ourselves to the discussion of the perputed lack of clarity.
 * [[[[[ Note: for the sake of public dialogue on this Talk page, I will point out, again, that the etymology and meaning of the word "Eskimo" is "one who nets snowshoes, that that etymology has reached scientific consensus in the related scientific literature which specializes on such questions, and there is no peer reviewed "dispute" whatsoever, nor has any been reported on. This is public knowledge within the specialist linguisitic community.  Please see https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php
 * Within the context of Wikipedia-public dialogue, it is ideed worth noting CambridgeBayWeather's (book) source above. This book claims that Inuit do not use snowshoes but (1) that is not specialist research, so not relevant to my statement above and (2) the claim is based on a premise which is either false or geographically biased to too small an area for the subject being discussed ]]]]].
 * The question, perhaps, which we should be asking ourselves, is "unclear to who"? Because, since I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not engaging in deliberate censorship, what you are very clearly doing is assigning undue weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight  When scientfic specialist research is all one way, and public dialogue is frankly all over the map, and scientific generalist sources are quite iffy, and if I may say so rather distracted, it isn't such a difficult call to make in favor of the specialist research consensus, which says that "one who nets snowshoes" is the correct etymological origin.  There's no real point arguing this further.  Either you accept the vallidity of scientific consensus or you do not, either you value truth, or you inadvertently act the censor; either you write into the article what is accurate, or you determine what should be in it by tyranny of the majority, i.e. mob rule.  That is why the undue weight directive exists.
 * As for the etymology section itself, it is alright except in that it repeats the same error-- assigning undue weight. It isn't encyclopedic that "a variety of theories have been proposed".  People have literally put forth theories such as "birds are not real". Yet, I could not find the claim that birds are not real *anywhere* in the Wikipedia article on "Bird".  Fatbatsat (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you deliberately missing the point or do you really not get it. People are offended by being called Eskimo. It does not matter the origin of the word, or the original intention, some people are offended by it (there are references in the article and below). You are saying that science says but forgetting that we are talking about humans who have feelings. And yes we should say what scientific consensus says but we also need to point out the widespread belief of others. The belief of the "raw meat" is not a minor thing.
 * As to Inuit not wearing snowshoes I am not trying to put that into the article. Just pointing out why Inuit find the "snowshoe netter" odd. It is possible that some Inuit in the south that are/were around the treeline wore snowshoes but not to a large extent. When a words origin stems from a small group of people then the majority are going to find it confusing. By the way where are your references that Inuit wear snowshoes? I've never met a single Inuk who knew of someone wearing snowshoes. Our snow packs so hard they aren't necessary.
 * I notice that you claim I'm censoring the article. How have I done that? What is it that you want to include that I won't let in? You, on the other hand, seem to want to erase the entire idea that people are upset by being called an Eskimo and remove any mention of the "raw meat" belief. If that is not your intention you need to state that clearly on this talk page.
 * The fact that I'm an admin is a red herring on your part. I haven't used to tools to shape the article at all as can be seen here. Neither have I used being an admin in any discussion. The fact that I am one never came up here until you mentioned it and looks to me like an effort to poison the well.
 * "please bear in mind that regardless of how you are using the term, the "Inuit" are a real people, a real group of peoples, or a real group of group of peoples, not a hypothetical one. *That* word even means "the real people"." thanks for the explanation. After 47 years in the Arctic I hadn't realised that all my Inuit family and friends were actual people until you pointed it out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you are censoring the article. I am fairly certain that your post above strongly indicates that you are *deliberately* censoring the article to anyone who is actually paying attention to this debate.  The benefit of the doubt runs out at some point, man, and after several years of hard or "soft" abuse of your position as editor to support a POV, you are very close to that point.  I'm sorry if it looks like I'm poisoning the well.  I can see how it might look that way, even though it isn't the case.
 * >>>"If that is not your intention, you need to state that clearly on this talk page."
 * No, I really don't need to state that, I think it's ridiculously obvious at this juncture that you are a big fan of straw man arguments, and not of logic. But that doesn't allow you to dictate what I can say or not say.  Practically all your other points above are also straw-man arguments.  You are arguing against points I have not expressed and do not hold, in order to censor me, and dilute my pointing out of obvious, well-accepted facts.
 * >>>"Neither have I used being an admin in any discussion."
 * Very funny, I've seen you use block-threats, blocks and secondhand blocks via report repeatedly over several years, including, it would surprise me not at all, quite recently. How clever of you not to bring that up in discussion.
 * >>>"It is possible that some Inuit in the south that are/were around the treeline wore snowshoes but not to a large extent."
 * Well, glad to hear that you're an expert on this now. It's the insinuation that this point you are making is even faintly relevant to the topic at hand which rankles me, and, yes, makes me concerned that you are trying to talk this to death, which is a form of censorship (as is hurling "tattletale" blocks, facilitating and "weighing in" on RFPs with a totally inadequate number of attendees, citing unreliable literature as equivalent to peer-reviewed papers, and let's not forget the repeated and premature archiving of relevant info on the Talk page, which I'll hazard a guess you could have done something about pretty easily, even if you aren't directly responsible). When you are more than informed enough on the topic to know the difference, you cannot use ignorance as an excuse-- that is what you have done, and that is why I am singling you out.
 * >>>"After 47 years in the Arctic I hadn't realised that all my Inuit family and friends were actual people until you pointed it out."
 * No, you just apparently think they are the only "Inuit", etc. people who matter, and it's a perfectly reasonable decision to subject, quite literally, the whole world to your very limited NNPOV. Which is part of why we don't love original research on Wikipedia.  Most of us also *really* do not like censorship.
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's time for you to either stop with the false accusations or take your complaints to the appropriate notice board. Given that you have accused me, without proof, of censorship and using my being an admin, I would suggest that you go to WP:ANI. I see that now you are adding even more false accusations without any links to back them up. I didn't say I was an expert, excellent word twisting, nor did I archive this page or say that my family were the only Inuit who mattered.
 * "No, I really don't need to state that" and "Most of us also *really* do not like censorship." So why are you trying to remove the "raw meat eater" belief, even thought it's incorrect but widely held, and the idea that some Inuit are offended by being called Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But they're not false! It's funny how you think you can keep calling them false, and that will somehow make them go away.  It's quite hard to make the truth go away.  I'm not actually trying to remove references to the raw meat eater shebang.  But see, you just admitted that it is incorrect.  And if and when I take this further up the chain, given the current state of the article, and your arguments for that state, your admission will be part of my evidence.  But I'm done talking with you about this, goodbye.Fatbatsat (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)