Talk:Inuit/Archive 2

Inuit Cabinet Members
I changed the First Inuk Cabinet Member section to include two previous Inuit who had lesser profile cabinet posts. --216.108.170.186 (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Education
The Inuits learn how people learn today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.235.183 (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, traditional knowledge varies from region to region, from tribe to tribe, and from family to family. There are some knowledge that is absent from far away tribes that is available to central region, and vice versa. The knowledge is usually acquired by experience, and we don't hearsay or gossip, because what is the point without not having to see it firsthand?

There is an ancient tale of a bright rock falling from the sky, and other what westerners would probably consider as stories and legends, but we don't talk nonsense, and lie, but we tell the truth right to the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Series Sidebar
Started this "Ethnic Series sidebar template" to bring together some of the main topics related to the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that the articles stand alone and do not overlap each other in content. What is your opinion? SriMesh | talk  04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE It has been added to the following articles, PLEASE ADD IT TO new and old articles about the topic..  


 * My opinion has been posted over at Template talk:Indigenous Peoples of Canada. To sum it up, it's very poorly designed and not aesthetically easy on the eyes. - Io Katai (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Template has been redone Collapse it version now

Inter tribe relations
Inuit did not fight the Tuniit, as most western mindset people might assume. Inuit were the friends of Tuniit. Tuniit died soley from the sicknessess that the european explorers brought. "Qiqiqtaajuk" and "Arvia juaq" parks are the proof of this sickness that came. Inuit too, suffered unsurmountable predicaments that almost led them to become extinct, like the Tuniit. Inuit are non violent people, unless "Push me and I'll push you back" kind of attitude.

There is also a one fairly unknown warfare in the Central region, but is very well known to the local Inuit. The arrow heads that the Indians used were useless to Inuit, so they just put them in a cave in our area. The big hill that the Inuit and Indians fought around became "A place where we laugh" (Iglarvik) because both Indian tribes and Inuit tribes did not expect each other tribes to see, while trying to attack each other, so the Indians realized that they could not beat the Inuit, we became cousins and apologized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.32.205 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some community members that came from this or that family, and what this means, I am theorizing, that Saqqamiut, Tuniit, Tariurmiut, Ahialmiut, and others are now living together without fighting, and much can be learnt by studying some families that have some traits visible, like baldness, or rounded and strong, etc., and learn that they are what they're really are! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From Asia?
They look asian to me, arent they immigrated from Asia some time trough history? 83.108.195.124 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes see -->Indigenous Amerindian genetics...Moxy (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Frobisher
Some of the poor Inuit brought to England by Frobisher were painted by various Dutch and Flemish artists and by John White (colonist and artist). See: Christian Feest, ed. Indians and Europe and Alden T. Vaughan, ''Transatlantic Encounters`.--Radh (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Various Tribes of the Inuit
There are various tribes living on different areas. For example, one tribe might excercise eating seals, and therefore, knows more about the ambience of seals, while the other, knows more about the caribou, and all the habits of caribou.

Eating sea mammals tend to make people more positive, seems like. The tribes that lived far from the coastal communities will tend to have more suicides, murders, and other fatal clashes, that are negative to all.

Sea mammals have vitamin D, which is also on the sunrays. There are various tribes excesicing various ways of life. There are tribes which have better relations and there are other tribes which they label to keep away. Tribes which benefit both sides tend to have more peaceful resolutions, while only one tribe which will benefit, there'll be more hard times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Genetic information
How was the lineage of genes tested, and which company tested the genes. How are the genes in Inuit differ then to that of Tuniit, or the Indians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find part of you question answered over at Sadlermiut (briefly, Thule = haplogroup A, Dorset = haplogroup D). Native American populations are variably A, B, C, D and X and represent multiple waves of migration. See Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for more details. —  Io Katai  ᵀᵃˡᵏ  19:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Universe
As with all the peoples of the earth, Inuit have their own version of knowledge, which might fall under science fiction and religion. We always have known that there are people watching us from above. The poor predecessors of us, go to that place to wait, and above all, there is one supreme being, benevolent and who rewards the good and punishes the bad. It all ties with LIFESTYLES, heh heh heh, lifestyles! Like the golden rule, this invisible being will gather everyone up once the natural cycles are complete. 4 seasons, are one of the cycles. Blooming, are the results of these times, and the sign for the imminent halt of natural cycles will become more chaotic, like the normal pattern of weather will change.

Belief, is like a magnet, being able to relocate objects, levitating to get away from the snowdrift, telekonesis, were favorites used by the individuals who can manuver these incantations, to make life better. Modernization and Industrial revolution is the main reason why our knowledge is disappearing, and fewer and fewer people knowing to practice these to pass their knowledge to the new generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.32.102 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Google search results not updated
I would just like to point out that when one googles Inuit, the wiki page begins "The Inuit' dick suckers indigenous peoples" How can we fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.54.223 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The google web crawler must have downloaded the page at a time when it had just been vandalised. This sort of thing is usually removed in seconds or minutes, but unless we go to pending revisions for all pages it cannot be avioded altogether.--Charles (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Migration from Asia
I recently saw a documentary by Niobe Thompson about the supposed migration of the Thule People from the Chukchi peninsula to Alaska about 800 years ago. The film is streamable only in Canada, not where I live.

CBC - the Nature of Things / Inuit Odyssey: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2009/inuitodyssey/index.html

He says the people there suffered what they called a technology trap when they forgot how to make stone tools since they started using iron tools. Mongolian wars prevented the supply of iron, forcing them to jump in their boats and migrate to Alaska. Then they forced out the local Dorset people from the best hunting sites, then spread East very quickly, reaching Greenland when it was still occupied by Vikings.

The Inuit and Thule people articles merely mention that the Thule were forerunners of the Inuit who "appeared" in Alaska about 800 years ago. If the theory is correct, such a late migration from Asia to the New World is interesting. Is this theory accepted or not? There must be much linguistic, cultural, and genetic evidence that would point one way or the other. Coldipa (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * yes it is pls see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for more info.Moxy (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Russia?
Is it correct to call the Yupik Eskimos of Russia/Western Alaska "Inuit"? 98.221.120.104 (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.114.121 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Eskimo
The article appears to apologize in a couple of places for there being no "replacement" term for Eskimo in Alaska. Since Alaskan Eskimos do not consider the term pejorative and readily identify themselves as Eskimos, this apology seems to be coming from a distinctly Canadian point of view. I will attempt a rewrite to make it more neutral after a little while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The page "Inuit" is mixed page
The page Inuit is mixed page! The Inuit peoples are Inuit languages speaking peoples: Inupiat people (or Alaskan Inuit people; own language: Inupiat language) + Inuvialuk people (or Western Canadian Inuit people; own language: Inuvialuk language or Western Canadian Inuktitut) + Inuit people (or Eastern Canadian Inuit people; own language Inuktitut or Eastern Canadian Inuktitut) + Kalaallit (or Greenlandic Inuit people; own language: Greenlandic language or Kalaallisut) --Kmoksy (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Language is only one criterion when deciding article content. Many cultural aspects are shared between the various sub-groups, so it makes sense to keep it all together. I think the article does a good job of explaining the distinctions and similarities. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be separated by two sheets of this Inuit page: 1) Inuit peoples (all Eskimo [excluded Yupik peoples] languages speaking peoples = Inupiat people, Inuvialuk people, Eastern Canadian Inuit people and Kalaallit); 2) Inuit people (only Inuktitut or Eastern Canadian Inuktitut speaking people) --Kmoksy (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not explained the '[m]ust" part of separating anything. Why is language the determinant when so much else is similar? The choice of article content and scope is not solely decided on linguistic grounds. Amd as far as I know, those "languages" are actually language families, or at least composed of distinctive sub-dialects. What distinct content do you propose for separate articles, other than noting the language variant, which this article already does? Franamax (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The page Inuit → Must have 2 separate pages = Inuit peoples and Inuit people (see above↑). The page Inuit peoples  is not Eskimo peoples. The Eskimo peoples page included Yupik peoples and Inuit peoples. OK. --Kmoksy (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there are some naming problems, however this is reflective of what has been published by many scientific fields (not just linguistics). All we can do is regurgitate what is out there.......... The term Eskimo has pejorative connotations in Canada and some in Greenland. Indigenous peoples have replaced the term Eskimo with Inuit.  The Yupik of Alaska and Siberia do not consider themselves Inuit, and ethnographers agree they are a distinct people. They prefer the terminology Yupik, Yupiit, or Eskimo.  The Yupik languages are linguistically distinct from the Inuit languages. Linguistic groups of Arctic people have no universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples.   Moxy (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between "Eastern Canadian Inuit" and "Eastern Canadian Inuktitut speaking people"? Having one page called "Inuit peoples" and another called "Inuit people" would be confusing to the average reader, a duplication of material and appears to be original research. Also what you are saying seems to me to would be better covered in Eskimo–Aleut languages, Inuit languages and their sub-articles. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Original research"??? Why? The language Inuktitut spoken by Eastern Canadian "Inuit" people (=Eastern Canadian "Inuktitut" speaking people). The "Globalize/Canada": The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. I agree. The page Inuit is mixed and "Canada-phile" (as Anglophile and Francophile). The usage of term "Eskimo" is not Anti-Canadianism. "The term Eskimo has pejorative connotations in Canada and some in Greenland". But, the term "Eskimo" is NOT PEJORATIVE in all World [excluded "Canada" and "Greenland"]. The Yupik peoples do NOT LIVE in Canada and Greenland. The usage of the term "Eskimo" is not pejorative by Nunivak Yupik (= Cup'ig) people: Nuniwarmiut Piciryarata Tamaryalkuti (= 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) . I am Eskimo. My left hand is Yupik and my right hand is Inuit and my brother is Aleut . OK --Kmoksy (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The description of the page Inuit (: "The Inuit are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada (Northwest Territories, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut, Nunatukavut), Denmark (Greenland), Russia (Siberia) and the United States (Alaska).[2]") is not for Inuit people or peoples. This description is for Eskimo peoples (Yupik peoples & Inuit peoples). The reference number [2] is Inuit Circumpolar Council and all Eskimo-Aleut languages speaking peoples are "Inuit" by Inuit Circumpolar Council: inuitcircumpolar.com 6. "Inuit" means indigenous members of the Inuit homeland recognized by Inuit as being members of their people and shall include the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia). This description is a political description and not scientific and not ethnological! NOTE: Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada) are Canadian Inuits: Inuvialuk people (= Western Canadian Inuit people; own language: Inuvialuk language = Western Canadian Inuktitut) + Inuit people (= Eastern Canadian Inuit people; own language Inuktitut = Eastern Canadian Inuktitut) --Kmoksy (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your saying - do you have any references to explained your position?Moxy (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Eskimo is the common name of Yupik and Inuit both and the Inuit is the common name of Alaskan Inupiat, Canadian Inuit and Greenlanders. The Inuit is synonymous of Eskimo only usage by Inuit Circumpolar Council and this usage is a Canadianism and not global usage! Okay! --Kmoksy (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct and is why the article says this with a banner at the top of the article.Moxy (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree exactly at the banner ("The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.") at the top of the article. The description of the article created by "Canadianists" and not global description. The article is created for all Eskimo-speaking peoples; is not Inuit peoples (excl. Yupik) or Inuit people (iku = Canadian Inuit = Inuktitut [ike] and Inuvialuktun [ikt] speaking peoples; esp. Eastern Canadian Inuit people). Inuktitut-speaking Eastern Canadian Inuit people's (or Canadians' political) opinion is dominated at the article --Kmoksy (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Inupiat as Inuit?
It was my understanding that the Inupiat resented being categorized as an Inuit subgroup. The classification of Inupiat as Inuit seems to come from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, a group which likes to classify all indigenous peoples of the Arctic as Inuit.Kraftiga (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern culture section?
I am concerned with the first sentence of the modern culture section, which emphasizes negatives, has no citation and also does not transition to the next items in the paragraph. Thoughts? Ntomlin (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
If the page is to deal with the Canadian "Inuit" and the others are to be dealt with at pages for the American "Eskimo" and Greenlandic "Kalaallisut" or "Greenlandic People", I could see an argument for keeping the page in Canadian English. Otherwise this edit established the standard as American English. Will fix the running text shortly. — LlywelynII  02:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which word are you referring to? I assume that it is "organization" which does not necessarily indicate US spelling. Look at Manual of Style/Spelling where is shows the UK/Canada use both organisation and organization. So that edit could indicate Canadian, UK or US spelling. The next one is here but has the same problem as above. In this series of edits by one editor both ize and ise are used. However they use "southwest" which rules out UK English. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, eh
Just noticed that the Canadian Encyclopedia article on "Inuit" still repeats the same bogus etymology for "Eskimo" that Wiki editors debunked in 2004. Yeah, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOURCE, but still fun (depressing?) to see it get this stuff more right than the Big Guys. — LlywelynII  03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you post a link to that debunking please LlywelynII. I'd very much like to read the arguments LookingGlass (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they mean Inuit or Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
The lead states that "The Inuit (Inuktitut: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, "People") are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Greenland, Canada, the United States, and Russia." Yet Inuit explicitly states that there are no Inuit in Russia either by language or self-identification. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference may act on their behalf, yes, but that does not make the Siberian Yupik people Inuit, nor do they consider themselves to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Yupik people are not Inuit --Kmoksy (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. I just removed the Russia mention in the lead, and we still have that international section later which does expand on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There's lots more contradictions where this one came from. Not being emic to the subject, I will not touch this one myself, but the following need to be addressed: The article title is "Inuit". Opening paragraph declares: "In the United States, the term Eskimo is commonly used in reference to these groups, because it includes both of Alaska's Yupik and Inupiat peoples while "Inuit" is not proper or accepted as a term for the Inupiat." So Inupiat are NOT Inuit and do not consider themselves to be Inuit, but are labelled Eskimo in the only country where the name Eskimo is still not a racial slur. But under "Gender Roles", we have two photos identified as Inupiat woman and Inupiat family. If the Inupiat are not Inuit and do not want to be Inuit, why are they here? Under the section Nomenclature, we read "In the United States, the term "Eskimo" is commonly used, because it distinguished both Yupik and Inupiat peoples from other native Americans. The Yupik do not speak an Inuit language or consider themselves to be Inuit." But the article on the Yupik seems to blur this distinction. Overall, the tag at the top of the article declaring "deal primarily with Canada and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject" seems to be taken as meaning "we must need more American content", but my reading of it is that the Inuit are strictly in Canada and Greenland, while the American kindred peoples self-identify as being not-Inuit. BeeTea (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't that complicated, really, but there is a lot of confusion, which isn't helped much by the well-meaning but clueless Wikipedia contributors who keep substituting "Eskimo" with "Inuit" everywhere it appears. Alaska's Inupiat are culturally and linguistically similar to Canada's Inuit, but do not usually call themselves "Inuit". Think of the French-speakers in Canada. They may speak French, and have some French cultural practices, but they are not French people. They are Canadians.

It's even more off-base with the Yupik people, who speak a different (though related) language and are a different people altogether. Calling them "Inuit" is like calling an Italian "French" or a Spaniard "Romanian" just because they speak a Romance language. It is very rude. Please stop doing this. 76.199.9.121 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to note that Greenland's "Eskimos" are also not called Inuit....nor are, I think, those in northern Quebec, or maybe it's just a different language/dialect that they have (Quebec I mean).Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Greenlandic Inuit people like the Inuit in Canada use several subdivisions. That's the same as the Akuliakattagmiut sub-group of the Copper Inuit. I added the tag not to necessarily get more US information but Greenlandic. As to the Quebec thing are you mixing up the Inuit with the Innu people who live in Quebec\Labrador. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Inuit should have a pronunciation indicated in standard IPA (the Inuktituk given is not in the standard IPA), with possible variants. Current standard Canadian is [ɪnwɪt] or [ɪnuɪt] (short i's), but my father, who worked in the Arctic for many years, pronounced it [i:nuit] ("eenooeet"). D A Patriarche (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Standard Canadian what? English? Inuit? — kwami (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Duh Canadian English of course, not Inuktitut (the Inuit language - the dominant one in Canada anyway). And to note that casual English is more like in-YOU-it, neither of those IPAs seems to hvae that 'y' sound huh?Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, "Standard" Canadian English (if there is such a thing) is more "in-YOU-it". I have changed the main page to include this.  Of course, since this is "en.wikipedia.org"", there is an implicit assumption that the pronunciation given is English, and since Inuit is mostly used in Canada, Canadian English is implied. [ɪnuɪt] would be more American (not much used there, as the next para states); I don't know what the Received English (SE British) would be, probably the same as the principal Canadian. The whole issue is rather minor in comparison to the scope of the article, so a detailed discussion of various pronunciations is best kept here on Talk IMHO — unless someone cares to start a whole new page on pronunciation!.  However, I am still personally curious as an amateur philologist as to what the Inuit themselves say! D A Patriarche (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, as WP-en one would hope that the pron. is English, but that doesn't mean that it is. We have IPA templates to make such things unambiguous. /ˈɪnuːɪt/ is RP, straight from the OED. Usonian is the same as Canadian. — kwami (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This and this sound like they would be pronounced by actual Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Traditional Medicine
There is currently no page for traditional Inuit medicine, please help change this by supporting the creation of wikipedia project traditional medicine. The traditional by definition cannot be the alternative; we need your help to create a detailed list of organisms and minerals used in traditional Inuit medicinal practices. Please help pool the worlds traditional medical resources to create the worlds most detailed pharmacopoeia, the world needs you. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed to Inuit people?
Perhaps this article should be renamed to Inuit people, since the word Inuit refers not only to the Inuit people, but also to their language and culture. It would be more logical for Inuit to be a disambiguation page, since this is the disambiguation pattern that is used for other ethno-linguistic groups (such as Italian, German, Polish, Ainu, etc.). Jarble (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Inuit" literately means people, that would just be redundant. There are multiple ways to name ethnic groups. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ukraine?!
How did anyone determine Inuit live in the Ukraine? I can't read Russian but am removing this info about providing a cite for locations of Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * The thing is that you didn't just remove the Ukraine but all of the Russian Yupik. I would agree that the Ukraine number of 153 should be removed. While there might be 153 Yupik in the Ukraine it is not a significant number, no more so than the 705 Inuit living in Ottawa. If the Russian Yupik are to be removed then so should the Alaskan Yupik. However, both groups are represented by the Inuit Circumpolar Council so there is no reason to remove them from the article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I got yelled at many years ago for adding Russia to this article. How are Yupik people Inuit? The mention of them as members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council just is part of listing all the member groups, not suggesting that Yupik people are Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Second paragraph: "Inuit" is not proper or accepted as a term for the Yupik." And the conversation that Inuit do not live in Russia was discussed previously here: Talk:Inuit/Archive 2. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Edit request on 20 October 2013
Change: In the United States, the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe Inuit, and other Arctic peoples to: In the United States, the term "Eskimo" is commonly used to describe Inuit, and other Arctic peoples since this is what these people call themselves collectively in the Alaska (in the United States).

75.134.113.16 (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But it's not; "Inuit" is used commonly in the United States. "Alaskan Natives" is the preferred term when discussing additional ethnic groups living in Alaska and is what's used on the US Census. "Eskimo" is increasingly falling out of favor, among Indigenous peoples, government, academia, and the general public. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus and/or provide reliable sources which support the change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Total population 150,000 = Inuit + Yupik + Aleut = All Eskimo-Aleut speaking peoples
The Total population "150,000" is not true; because, included Yupik (also Unangan Aleut) population (all natives of Eskimo-Aleut languages is not Inuit!). In the site of Alaska Native Language Center of University of Alaska, Fairbanks: Alaskan Inupiaq (Inuit) 15,700, Canadian Inuit 30,500 and Greenland Inuit are 47,000. The population of Yupiks of Alaska: Central Yup'ik 25,000, Sugpiaq (Alutiiq) 3,500 and Siberian Yupik of Alaskan St. Lawrence Island 1,400 (and Yupiks of Russia: 900). The "150,000" = Alaskan/Canadian/Greenland Inuits + Alaskan/Russian Yupiks + Alaskan/Russian Aleuts. The Yupiks are not Inuit (but, sensu Inuit Circumpolar Council all are "Inuit"! This is Canada-Greenland Inuitism). The Eskimo peoples of Alaska are Inupiaq, Central Alaskan Yupik (with apostrophe: Yup'ik), Siberian Yupik (not apostrophe) and Sugpiaq or Alutiiq Yupik. The Unangan Aleuts are not Eskimo (Inuit or Yupik). The Alaskan Inuits are only Inupiat people (pop. 15,700). The Yupiks are not lived in Canada and Greenland. --Kmoksy (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll adjust the figures accordingly. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * I had noticed the other day that there were multiple problems with the population figures. For example the 29,474 for Nunavut was the entire population and not just the Inuit. Numbers were referenced to censuses but without links and two, the 2007 Canada and the 2008 US, don't exist at all. There are also problems with these figures. The Canada and Greenland figures are from 1997. Not only are they outdated but at that time Nunavut did not exist. Given the Canadian figure I suspect that the Inuit total was just for the undivided Northwest Territories.


 * I had ben thinking for a couple of days about the best way to present the figures and realised that the infobox was not the place to show all the subdivisions of Canada. So I changed the box to use only countries because it looks odd having one US state and two countries. I added a demographics section with a breakdown of where larger numbers of people live. However, I didn't really think it necessary to break down the Inuit population of each state or province. Do people really need to know that there are just over 2,000 Inuit in Ontario? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dating system
Someone just switched the dating system around. Looking back through the history of the article, the dates have been changed numerous times from BCE/CE to AD/BC and back. The first instance I can find of anyone using either dating system was on 29 July 2003, using CE, so I'm going to change the dates back to be consistent, as per WP:Era. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2013
Where: Second to last line of the "Modern Culture" section Please remove "This phenomenon is also seen in other cultures (for example, Vanuatu)." Why: The cited source (#135) explicitly states that the phenomenon is NOT observed in Vanuatu, where the people continue to eat traditional diets.

Aquamarine012 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I removed the sentence as unsourced. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Inuit Creation myths
Is there space in this article for inclusion of Inuit perspectives on their origins? --IseeEwe (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Alaska or the United States
Some comments on my recently reverted edits. Personally, when we are talking about indigenous peoples, who draw their own tribal boundaries, I think it makes more sense to refer to regions (e.g. Alaska or "Aleyska") than to Nation-states. Second, "native Alaskan" refers to someone born in Alaska. "Alaska Natives" is the correct term for indigenous peoples of the place. Thirdly, "State" is capitalized when it refers to a State of the United States, and that's kind of not a trivial point here. I can understand using the wording United States when we're talking about the "arctic region of the Unites States" because the "arctic region of the United States" is a pretty specific region. That would almost be OK, were the Inuit actually inhabitants exclusively of Arctic regions, which they are not-- "Arctic" is a very specific region, and a great number of Inuit people are subarctic. Furthermore, the reference cited refers to "Alaska," not "the Unites States," so there's no real reason why Wikipedia should be changing the wording. Also, in the language section, I completely disagree with the use of "United States" instead of "Alaska"-- it is very obvious that we are not talking about the nation state at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.145 (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is or was commonly used?
I have reverted a pending edit to this page which changed "Eskimo was a term commonly used..." to "Eskimo is a term commonly used..." (emphasis mine) on the basis that I believe this is a contentious change and should be discussed. So, which word should be used here? Ivanvector (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the matter would be that if the phrase Eskimo is still in current use in what is considered reliable sources then its still is. If they are referring to them by Innuit or another alternative name then was seems like the best option.Amortias (T)(C) 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Was would be the best word here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am rather confused as to the utility of the entire section. Certainly, the word "Eskimo" is still commonly used.  Certainly, it also "was" a term commonly used.  I guess the question is: contentious or not, what is the point being made here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.145 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake, I actually agree with the group consensus on this one, and that section is fine, if not very cleanly worded. It's the later usage of "used to be" that I don't agree with (see my most recent edit).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.145 (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Inuit Geographic Range
I have a very strong Chukchi DNA population match with 14 pure blood Chukchi Inuit in extreme NE Siberia, Russia. I am 64 and this was a complete surprise. I am culturally Upper Midwest, USA white. Would so much appreciate some good commentary, from reputable sources on this Inuit connection in Russia, in this article. The connection for me is likely through the Russian American Company, or Hudson Bay Company, as I have a DNA population match with Fort Rupert on Hudson Bay as well as approximately the Fort Vancouver (Portland, Oregon) area, and very strong Russian DNA as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.75.134 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514033111/http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2001/ajpasuppl32.pdf to http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2001/ajpasuppl32.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131023013249/https://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/private/factsheet-seriesFINAL2.pdf to https://www.itk.ca/sites/default/files/private/factsheet-seriesFINAL2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2016
In the articles "Suicide, murder, and death" subsection there is a hatnote link to the subsection of another article: "Suicide among Canadian aboriginal people". However, the subsection in the other article was renamed by an editor last month. This broke the specific hatnote link (leading to the general article instead of the exact subsection). To correct this, please change the hatenote in the "Suicide, murder, and death" subsection:

to:

62.107.210.94 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 10:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fish Oil
The section on diet ends with this sentence "Furthermore, fish oil supplement studies have failed to support claims of preventing heart attacks or strokes," even though fish oil supplements are not mentioned anywhere else in the entire article. That makes this sentence feel out of place. I will remove the line soon (or add more about fish oil supliments to incorporate it into the whole article better) if no one comes to it's defense.Lukejodonnell (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016
A few paragraphs right before the references, this sentence "In 2009 the film, Le Voyage D'Inuk, a Greenlandic language feature film directed by Mike Magidson and co-written by Magidson and French film producer Jean-Michel Huctin.[144]" SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS "In 2009 the film, Le Voyage D'Inuk, a Greenlandic language feature film was directed by Mike Magidson and co-written by Magidson and French film producer Jean-Michel Huctin.[144]" Thank you.

Stefso (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010412155403/http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105224835/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217073541/http://www.itk.ca:80/publications/maps-inuit-nunangat-inuit-regions-canada to http://www.itk.ca/publications/maps-inuit-nunangat-inuit-regions-canada
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221142959/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca:80/ch/rcap/sg/sg38_e.html to http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg38_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119195019/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/north/story/2008/10/30/aglukkaq-cabinet.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/10/30/aglukkaq-cabinet.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010412155403/http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612042514/http://www.uwo.ca/english/canadianpoetry/eng%20274e/hearne.htm to http://www.uwo.ca/english/canadianpoetry/eng%20274e/hearne.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620203125/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2003/05/26/mclauchlin_obit030526.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/05/26/mclauchlin_obit030526.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221063926/http://nac.nu.ca:80/OnlineBookSite/vol2/introduction.html to http://nac.nu.ca/OnlineBookSite/vol2/introduction.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305060320/http://inuitcircumpolar.com:80/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=374&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&current_slide_num= to http://inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=374&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&current_slide_num=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016021822/http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/nuuk_declaration_2011_signed_copy-1..pdf to http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/nuuk_declaration_2011_signed_copy-1..pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141227200005/http://www.leonaaglukkaq.ca/about/about-leona/ to http://www.leonaaglukkaq.ca/about/about-leona/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808115551/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/story/2006/02/13/report-artistic-capedorset.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/02/13/report-artistic-capedorset.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.nrf.is/Open%20Meetings/Anchorage/Position%20Papers/Penney_Sen%C3%A9cal_Guimond_Bobet_and_Uppal_5thNRF_position_paper_session2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130825230419/http://www.cbc.ca:80/documentaries/natureofthings/2009/inuitodyssey/history.html to http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2009/inuitodyssey/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024023424/http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/1233750269/ to http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/The+Nature+of+Things/ID/1233750269/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linguisticsinamsterdam.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdf?c=aclc%3Bidno%3D0401a01
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516091108/http://www.livingdictionary.com/index.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D6451902113FC1DE7E2CF0B986F7B923E to http://www.livingdictionary.com/index.jsp%3Bjsessionid%3D6451902113FC1DE7E2CF0B986F7B923E
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/The%2BNature%2Bof%2BThings/ID/1233750269/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia
I removed the following from the main article space. It implies that Inuit live in Russia in large numbers; however, the figures include "Eskimo" people, in this case, Yupiit who actually do live in Siberia. Yuchitown (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown

According to the 2010 Russian Census there were a total of 1,738 Inuit/Eskimo living throughout the country, mostly in the East of the Far Eastern Federal District.

Canada to apologize for treatment of Inuit with tuberculosis in mid-20th century
An interesting new article, Canada to apologize for treatment of Inuit with tuberculosis in mid-20th century

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. says it expects the apology ‘anytime now’ CBC News · Posted: Oct 25, 2018 2:06 PM CT | Last Updated: October 25, 2018 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/tuberculosis-apology-inuit-1.4878043

I am not sure where this would fit into the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Inuiuuk
Look, I've tried to get rid of this ficticious word "Inuiuuk" everywhere I find it in Wikipedia and keep getting reverted by people citing articles that got the name from Wikipedia. This is not a thing. The name itself is as impossible in Inuktitut as the Croatian word "vrt" is in English. Please see the article on Inuit Sign Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.48.173 (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

term "Eskimo"
'the term "Eskimo" was commonly used by ethnic Europeans'. Is this true? in my experience it was commonly used by anyone who spoke English, regardless of their ethnic background. And it originated with Algonquin people, no? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Air Inuit and Inuits Need to go to school
Does anyone know why the Air Inuit logo is in the first sentence with the line "Inuits People Need to Go to School"?
 * The article was vandalised a few minutes ago. Thanks for the report. TwoTwoHello (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Very confusing passage
''In Canada and the United States, the term "Eskimo" was commonly used to describe Inuit and Siberia's and Alaska's Yupik and Iñupiat peoples. However, "Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik, and "Eskimo" is the only term that applies to Yupik, Iñupiat and Inuit. Since the late 20th century, Indigenous peoples in Canada and Greenlandic Inuit consider "Eskimo" to be a pejorative term, and they more frequently identify as "Inuit" for an autonym.''

Does "Eskimo" apply to to the Inuit or not? The citation implies that Kaplan says it does apply to the Inuit, but the sentence goes on to say that for the last few decades the Inuit believe that it does not. What's involved here and why? Also, the second sentence is a tangle. I'd take a whack at it but I'm not sure I could get what the author was trying to express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4380:46B0:B490:94FC:7E77:7189 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect this is a case of somebody trying to write a single sentence that covers all possible cases, and as a result fails to cover any case. However, I can confirm the third sentence: at least in Canada, "Eskimo" is a pejorative term. Somebody who knows more about this subject than I do needs to re-write that section. --Rob Kelk 15:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Inuit / Iñupiat in Russia
The Diomede Islands were home to Iñupiats. Those on the Russian island were relocated to the Russian mainland. Though there aren't many left, technically there are indeed some Inuit in Russia. I wonder if the Russians miscount them as Yupik or Chukchi and how they self-identify now. But should this be noted? - 71.226.227.121 (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The racial slur "Eskimo"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eskimo#Racial_slur? I have started a discussion on the use of the word] Eskimo on that article. This includes the suggestion of a merge. Rwood128 (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Some or many
none of the sources use the word "some" to refer to Greenlandic or Canadians. Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?, which is an updated version of the 2011 article by Kaplan, says that "many or even most Alaska Natives" now find the name insulting. That would also apply to Canadian and Greenlandic Inuit. It doesn't matter if Eskimo means "raw meat eater" or "snowshoe netter" it is considered by more than just some to be insulting. I also added more sources to show that it is more than just some.

As to the groups using Eskimo to group Inuit and Yupik together. Who are they? Especially the Inuit groups that are doing that. The Kaplan reference also clearly shows that using Eskimo to group people is diminishing.

This is turning into a "water is wet" problem. There should not be a need to have so many sources to prove it is more than just some Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you added three references. The third is only discussing Yupik (Asiatic Eskimo) and doesn't refer to other Inuit. The other two are dictionary definitions of the word and doesn't indicate that it is in common use today. One of the others is a dictionary definition. The EB one is weird. They don't have an article on Inuit, (blacklisted link here, remove the spaces: https: // www.britannica.com / search?query=Inuit). So we have only one group that groups all Inuit as Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But your item only applies to how Alaska natives speak, not to everyone in the north or abroad. And your add was only one source. "Most" or the majority is always problematic at wikipedia. Many is a better alternative and better fits the sources given. Eskimo use may be diminishing but it is heavily used throughout the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And goodness, I could put in 1000 sources that use "Eskimo" so your "By Whom" addition is ridiculous. Is that what you want me to do considering all the usage of the term Eskimo in all the previous sources? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The use of most may be problematic but so is some. The use of some gives the impression that there are not that many Inuit who object to being called Eskimo but the reality is the other way round. I added more than one source. I added one source to show that Alaskan Native people are now using Inuit. I also added sources to show that non-Alaskan Inuit don't like being labelled Eskimo. I don't think that the expert given here is correct when they say "Nobody uses Eskimo in Canada anymore – at all," but it is still more than some.
 * As to the opening sentence in the nomenclature section it was "The term "Eskimo" is still used for the purpose of grouping the Inuit and Yupik peoples together while distinguishing them from American Indians in the United States." Not only is that unsourced, but to me it gives the impression that some organisations are, in an official capacity, grouping people together and calling them Eskimo. If so then wanting to have some references showing who these groups are, apparently EB, would be required. If the sentence was more that throughout the world people still use the word Eskimo, and I know that it is in common use outside Canada and Greenland, then it would be fine.
 * By the way if you want me to stop pinging you in my replies please say so. I don't mind the pings as they turn up on my phone. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva
 * I actually disagree with you on both fronts. In tennis articles we very often run into the situation of "some/many/most." It is easy to source the term "some." Throw a couple sources and you have it. Many is more difficult as you will need multiple sources from around the world that use the term "many" or pretty much every source one can find says it's as common as not. the term "most" is exceedingly difficult to prove because things like common usage among the population usually can't be sourced. As to the grouping of Inuit, Yupik, and others, I get no impression at all that we are talking about organizations. I read that sentence as a general observation in the English speaking world that there is no good term to use other than Eskimo when talking about all those folk combined. However the sentence can certainly be tweaked to allay your concerns. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple of sources could indicate anything, "few/some/lots/most/many/all". That's why I removed it. There is no need to define the number of people who self-identify.
 * For the nomenclature section why not say "The term Eskimo is still used by people to encompass the Inuit and Yupik, as well as other Indigenous Alaskan and Siberian peoples. However, this usage is dying out in North America.

CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with the first sentence, but "dying out" is way too strong a term to use when I think it likely that many more people than not use the term. Plus there is no good alternative that encompasses all the groups. I would not even include sentence to to be honest, but if you did it would need to be realistic. Dying out sounds like it's near extinction. perhaps "In the 21st century, usage in North America has declined." That is truthful and should be easily sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added it. Hope it looks OK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. It's a relief these days to work things out with some give and take and always with our readers in mind. Too often that doesn't happen. Cheers to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Expired reference links
The links to US census data for year 2000 are no longer valid.

I've tried to find the same data within the current census.gov website but the nearest I can find is US census table P007 for Alaska, which shows an ethnicity grouping of "American Indian and Alaskan Native" numbering ~98000, which is about 7× the claimed figure in the article, with no indication of subdivisions of that grouping.

I also note from exploring data that generally almost none of the figures has a margin of error of less than 100, so the assertion that "about 14,718, live in the state of Alaska" is spuriously precise; I suggest it should say either "about 14700" or "about 15000". Martin Kealey (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Article issues

 * This is listed as a B-class article. The criteria include The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. There are "citation needed" tags (April 2018, December, and July 2020), as well as "dead links" (November 2016). --  Otr500 (talk)

Other concerns

 * While it is sometimes needed (or wanted) to have multiple sources, two or three, it is rare that four or more is needed as too many does not benefit the article or a reader. The last sentence in the lead has seven citations yet the paragraph still has a tag. A major concern is that many paragraphs and even subsections are unsourced.
 * There is what appears to be an advertisement link in the "Further reading" section ("Informational webpage related to the TV documentary, Inuit Odyssey, shown below in the External links section"), and the "External links" could be checked for bloat.-- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this. Until all the sources for the last sentence in the lead were added it was seen as wrong and problematic. It has been disputed that "Eskimo" is not offensive and Inuit, and others, should not be upset by being called that. All but one, #24, are in the body. I fixed up the externals to link only to the ICC and ITK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Outdated source and unsourced material
IP 69.178.53.217 you are adding unreferenced material. You are replacing modern sources with outdated sources thus adding incorrect information.

Adding Thule people in the infobox is unsourced. To my mind that should be for extant peoples rather than for groups no longer around.

Your edit summary says you have "updated sourcing: overreliance on a single transient source doesn't make sense in this context". However, you are not updating the sourcing. In fact you are using a source from 2011 written by Lawrence Kaplan (https://web.archive.org/web/20190112064340/https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/) that is no longer available online and has to be obtained from the Internet Archive. At the same time you are removing the 2021 source by Lawrence Kaplan (https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php). So the 2021 source is transient and I am over relying on it but the outdated 2011 source that Kaplan has removed is not transient and should be relied on. Sure 10 years ago even in the western Canadian Arctic it wasn't as much an insult as now and I have noted that elsewhere on a Wikipedia talk page.

I understand from remarks you have made elsewhere that because "Eskimo" is from an Innu and means "snowshoe netter" you don't find it offensive. And that nobody else should find it offensive either. However, there are problems with that belief. We have no idea what the Innu meant when they called their neighbours that. Was it an insult or not? Second the people being called "Eskimo" are saying they find it insulting, offensive and so on. You edits are saying that they are all wrong. We have to go with what the most modern reliable sources say. So if Kaplan was good in 2011 and has since changed his mind then he is the most modern reliable source. Now I don't doubt that some people in Alaska don't object to being called "Eskimo" as there are still people in Canada that don't mind either but we have to go with the sources and not our beliefs. I don't have a source that some people in the NWT or Nunavut are not offended by "Eskimo" so I don't add it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What? No, actually, Eskimo is offensive to some people, that's pretty undeniable. Find me a reference that it is "more of an insult 10 years ago than it is now" and we can discuss that, but the question seems tangential. The problem is that the new version of the article is relying on the equivalent of an offhand comment posted on a university  webpage, which clearly changes regularly, without any citation, versus actual well-researched, refernced encyclopedia articles, albeit ones of a general nature.  I simply failed to remove the old reference, which is exactly as well referenced and clear as the new reference, which is to say, not very well. Consensus is to update references, not change material in contrast to overwhelmingly supported reference material, backing it up with a single, transient source.  And to be clear, I've nothing against using the new Kaplan source, just not where it contradicts more solid and less transient sources, or, rather, appears to contradict them, because if you read the actual text of the Kaplan source carefully and have some knowledge of the question, it is more than a bit vague, I would even say self-contradictory in some parts.69.178.53.217 (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I see you are still misunderstanding. It's not about what you or I say or think it is what reliable sources say.


 * I didn't say Eskimo was "more of an insult 10 years ago than it is now". What I said was, "Sure 10 years ago even in the western Canadian Arctic it wasn't as much an insult as now..." which is very different. One problem is that you support Kaplan in his 2011 reference but not in 2021, which doesn't "clearly changes regularly". If he was acceptable in 2011 then he is in 2021.


 * The NPR source is from 2016 and is also a bit outdated but in no way does it say anything about Denmark. And because it is from 2016 Wikipedia should say that and the reader can decide if it is true today. I fixed the dictionary and EB source as they were already used further down. Of course, if it is true today and there are sources that prove it add them.


 * All in all the lead is getting to big and I moved some of it down to the "Etomology" section. People want to see who the Inuit are and not a whole discussion on who the Eskimo are.


 * Other problems.


 * In the infobox you change direct links to redirects and add Thule people. The Thule people are not sourced and are Inuit ancestors. So like my error of adding Iñupiat it needs removing. It should be related extant peoples.
 * You keep linking France in the "Early contact with Europeans" section. As per Manual of Style/Linking I've unlinked it.
 * You keep adding "The British Naval Expedition of 1821–23 led by Admiral". Only thing is he wasn't an admiral until 1852 but he was commander at the start and appointed captain during the voyage to the Northwest Passage. There doesn't appear to an official "British Naval Expedition of 1821–23" but that it was a voyage to the NWP and I've added the source.
 * According to Manual of Style/Text formatting says "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." So Siqqitiq
 * In the "Traditional beliefs" section you keep changing to  but both Inuit mythology and Shamanism among Eskimo peoples redirect to Inuit religion. No need to have two redirects to one article.
 * Slightly further down you remove the link to Inuit religion in the article body. But readers on the mobile version do not always see the see also and main. Plus they are not to be substitutes for links in the body.
 * Below that there is a quote and a paragraph. The quote was hidden because there was no source. I found a source added it and made it visible. In the paragraph below added a source. You removed both of these for no particular reason.


 * Unrelated I noticed multiple statements that the Chukchi people were also called Eskimo. However, there were no sources for that so I removed them. At the same time I found a source indicating that the Chukchi people were related to the Inuit so I added the source. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, you may be right. I think I have somehow edited a less correct version of the article.  Not sure how I managed that one, but I'll own my part of the error.  A lot of things apparently got changed at once.  You're still incorrect on Kaplan however, which I think is pretty clear from my dialogue above.  Neither the 2011 version nor the 2021 version of an unsourced academic opinion satatement can ordinarily be considered particularly reliable versus researched encyclopedic articles.69.178.53.217 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Saying "related to the Inuit, but are not Inuit, and do not commonly identify as Inuit" is overdoing it. The article is about Inuit not those who are not. That information, if necessary, and I don't really think it is, belongs elsewhere in the article. Kaplan has long been used as a reliable source and is more so that a dictionary definition and the EB source which has a glaring error, "In Canada and Greenland the name Inuit is preferred for all indigenous peoples there." But I've not removed them just changed the wording of the paragraph to reduce overusing Inuit. I'm not sure why you removed the sourced bit about the Chukchi. Both the Chukchi people and Eskimo articles say they are the closest "relatives of the indigenous peoples of the Americas". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Kaplan has long been used as a reliable source". Your reasoning is circular.  You call a statement outdated because it was put down in writing 10 years ago.  You then say a supposedly oppositional framing of the same statement is a "reliable source" because it has long been used.  Do you not see the contradiction?  I did not say the Encyclopedia entries were perfect, as that is far from the case.  They are widely accepted sources however.
 * The Chukchi people don't ever identify as Yupik, Inuit, or Eskimo, and pretty much no one confuses them with the Siberian Yupik peoples, let alone Inuit peoples. While DNA tests show that they are genetically similar, they aren't particularly culturally similar.  So I'd say you've pretty much just thrown that in there at random, which more or less just serves to demonstrate your fundamental narrow scope of knowledge about the topic, or else, if you'll pardon me pointing out the possibility, serves to water down a point which you see as in opposition to your agenda-based edits.  Interesting tidbit though it may be, the Chukchi info *does* probably belong elsewhere in the article.  Game to leave it as is for now.  However, the way people identify is, as you yourself have written elsewhere, quite relevant and encyclopedic.  It's also in keeping with prior consensus worked toward on the article, so please don't just delete it based on your own generated bias, which apparently centers around what I would have to call quasi-worship of a single source at this point.
 * 69.178.53.217 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You are twisting what I said to suit yourself. What Kaplan wrote in 2011 was correct then. You were quite happy to accept his 2011 writing when it said what you wanted, here and here. Things have changed in the last 10 years and he updated to reflect that. You don't agree with what he said in 2021 so now you think he is no longer a reliable source.
 * I never said that the Chukchi identified or were mistaken for Yupik, Inuit or Eskimo. The paragraph is about related people who are not Inuit. In fact, the Chukchi were listed as as being Eskimo until quite recently. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, this is further than I wanted to go into this topic, but a human being is not what we'd call a source at all, unless you're talking about an oral history. I am actually pretty sure that the main issue is that you don't understand what the 2021 source is trying to say, which is understandable, because its written pretty confusingly.  And as you are repeating yourself, I can only repeat myself: your specific understanding of what the 2021 source is saying is specifically contradicted by other, better established sources.69.178.53.217 (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks more as if you are not willing to accept that things have changed in the last 10 years. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Changed in the last 10 years" requires you to say how, and to back it up with referencing, neither, it seems, you can actually do. Possibly because your claim is that, in the last ten years, an entire group of people just randomly started referring to themselves as an entirely different group of people?  Yeah... that's not just an unreferenced, unproven claim that begs the burden of proof-- it is also hillarious.  If you're saying something else, well then I'd say you've had plenty of paragraphs above to say it in, and you aren't doing a great job of getting your point across.  And now, let's just get this completely straight: are you saying that all this happened just because you said so, or just because you said Kaplan said so?  No, honestly, I'm done here, I refuse to be goaded further on this.  Just go home man.

Contested sentence
here is the section in question without Wiki markup;


 * " However, such referential is not without problems for the Yupik people, for example, since “Inuit” is a grouping of at most the Inupiat of northern Alaska, the four broad groups of Inuit in Canada, and the Kalaallit of Greenland, and has long been used in that way to the exclusion of other, closely related groups (e.g. Yupik, Aleut).  "

and here is what I changed it to;


 * " However, such usage is not without problems for the Yupik peoples. "Inuit" is traditionally a grouping of, at most, the Iñupiat of northern Alaska, the four broad groups of Inuit in Canada, and the Greenlandic Inuit, and has long been used in that way to the exclusion of other, closely related groups (e.g. Yupik, Aleut). "

So I changed "referential" because it wasn't referring to anything in that paragraph and didn't make sense. See referential. The common term is "peoples" so "Yupik peoples" The quote marks around Inuit were incorrect as per Manual of Style. The wording was changed to reduce the size of the sentence and add some punctuation marks. I used the Iñupiat spelling because that corresponds to the Iñupiat article. I changed Kalaallit to Greenlandic Inuit because there are the Inughuit and Tunumiit. The way the sentence is now makes it appear that the last two groups are not Inuit.

As for the sources. Changing bare links is pretty standard. The reference https://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/eskimo-aleut was already in the article and it is standard to use the and because that made it a lower number than the other two so I moved it to the front.

Now I did not move it down the page as an "apparent NNPOV edit / random displacement, marginalization of well-referenced material". If that was the case I would have removed the sentence completely. I moved it because it made no sense in that paragraph. In addition it duplicates what is already said in the previous paragraph. Another reason is that the lead is getting bloated and should be about who are the Inuit and not repeating who are not. I placed it where it worked with the Kaplan paragraph and acted as a reply to what he said. Moving it there was not some random choice but carefully considered to balance Kaplan. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll accept that it was a good faith edit, but to say that those two (both well-referenced) ideas do not relate and do not belong in the same paragraph is probably misguided. "Balance" concept is misdirected above, as there's no conflict, per se, between the two ideas except when a well-meaning editor, in the name of brevity, starts hacking things off which provide vital context to incomplete and, taken alone, potentially confusing commentary.  Thanks for the catches on the source designation and on Greenlander nomenclature.
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. Leave it there but how about changing to read;


 * "However, referring to other indigenous Arctic peoples as Inuit is not without problems. "Inuit" is a grouping of, at most, the Iñupiat of northern Alaska, the four broad groups of Inuit in Canada, the Greenlandic Inuit, and, it has long been used in that way to the exclusion of other, closely related groups including the Yupik and Aleut.(current references)"


 * This breaks up the length of the sentence, removes the duplication of "example" and "Yupik".


 * Then we need to merge the last two paragraphs of the lead. They both say that Yupik and Aleut are not Inuit. The "Nomenclature" section should probably come before the history section. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm. "Indigenous arctic peoples" kind of misses the target, doesn't it?  Whether you're talking about the Athabaskan/Haida/Tlingit et. or the non-Inuit Metis/First Nations folks, there's a cultural/language rift and a genetic rift of something between 10 and 20 thousand years between those people and the traditional Inuit-Yupik-Unangan speakers.  If I am referring to a Yupik person, in particular, as Inuit, which could of course be offensive, I am at most incorrect, but it could actually be deliberate.  Whereas if I'm referring to one of the aforementioned groups I would be seriously confused.  Unless we are talking about "arctic" as "above the arctic circle" (not really the common usage, but just for the sake of argument).  In which case I suppose that, Chukchi aside, we can argue that 99% of the traditional inhabitants, of those areas from Eastern Siberia to Eastern Greenland, are in fact Inuit (narrow definition).  It just gets kind of confusing, if you get what I mean.
 * I see your point about the need to consolidate, however. Please take a look at my most recent edit, and tell me what you think.Fatbatsat (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks fine. I fixed the disambiguation. As for indigenous Arcti people that was due to earlier in the day being asked, off Wikipedia, if Sámi were Eskimo or Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

CIA Factbook: Inuit population of Greenland
Where does the CIA Factbook make the claim that 88 % of the population of Greenland are Inuit? I've downloaded the 2018 version and all I've found is that it says 89.6 % were born in Greenland. And if such a claim were made: What's the definition of "Inuit" in that case? Anybody who was born in Greenland and speaks Greenlandic as or like a native-speaker is accepted as a "Greenlander" by the society. This includes not only a lot of biracial persons, but also a fair number of people that are genetically Europeans who grew up in Greenland and speak Greenlandic. This must be explained. The situation in Greenland is exactly the opposite of Canada: You don't have Inuit who can't speak Eskimo, you have White people who can. 78.55.204.247 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The most up to date version of the CIA Factbook says that 89.5% are ethnic Greenlanders. What exactly that means I'm not sure but as it isn't connected to language.
 * The numbers for Denmark are also suspect. Here's the English version of the source. It is just people born in Greenland.
 * Your paragraph is slightly offensive. My children are biracial but are just as Inuit as anyone else. You say that in Canada: "You don't have Inuit who can't speak Eskimo, you have White people who can." That's nonsense. There are indeed non-Inuit who speak Inuit languages. Although they are not counted as Inuit. However, there are Inuit who don't speak a Inuit language. Being an Inuk has nothing to do with being able to speak the language. Edna Elias is Inuk and fluent in Inuinnaqtun but so is Natan Obed and he speaks no Inuit language. My grandchildren don't speak an Inuit language but they are just as Inuit as their great aunt Edna. So yes you can have Inuit in Canada who don't speak their language.
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Statements made with non-supportive material (Referenced article does not agree with statements made)
I do not edit wikipedia articles, so I do not know the proper way to address this, but upon reading into one of the references for some statements in this article I found some large errors that I felt the need to point out. Thank you & I apologize if I haven't used the proper editing techniques.

Under Diet one article is referenced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC325106) in relation to these statements: "More recent studies, however, have indicated that the concept that heart attacks were rare among the Inuit appears to be a myth, including findings of frozen Inuit mummies showing signs of atherosclerosis.[100] Modern population studies have shown that Inuit share similar rates of heart attacks as the rest of the world, and nearly twice the risk of strokes.[100]"

Having just read the article myself in reference to the Inuit bodies studied, I believe the conclusions stated here are not supported by the reference article.

The first statement made is that the study shows that "the concept that heart attacks were rare among the Inuit is a myth" is not found in the article. In fact, the article indicates no findings of myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) among the Inuit preserved bodies that were studied. They say about one body, "There was no evidence of myocardial infarction, acute or healed. The well-preserved valves and chambers were normal (pg 253.") Two other bodies studied died from trauma, one with a heart free of disease and another with heart issues but also signs of early childhood illness. Another thought to have died from pneumonia, etc. None were determined to have died from myocardial infarction/heart attack. At the end of its discussion on Egyptian mummies it states, "The study indicated that the diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction is probably not possible in a mummified body," going on to say that the most they can say based on evidence in mummified bodies is possible death as a result of atherosclerotic heart disease(pg 256.) Therefore, the concept that heart attacks were rare (not impossible or unheard of, but simply rare) could indeed be true. There are also not enough bodies to study to make a statistically significant statement about ancient Inuit, which the article also mentions the lack of bodies to study.

The article also says that "The Eskimo [sic] diet was almost entirely meat, as attested to by their severe osteoporosis, while the Egyptian diet contained meat only at occasional festival times; yet the findings of atherosclerosis in both group suggests that diet alone may not be a critical factor (pg 256.") So while the article found evidence of atherosclerosis in some of the Inuit bodies, it also indicates that this may not be the result of diet alone, therefore to put it under the diet category seems to be against the articles findings.

The same article is referenced in the second statement yet nowhere in the article does it discuss modern Inuit rates of heart attacks or strokes. The only reference to the health of modern day Inuit is in reference to lung cancer from smoking cigarettes introduced after WWII affecting modern Inuit women and osteoporosis (from a high-protein diet causing metabolic acidosis and thus calcium loss.)

I believe the statements to be using this article as evidence for their points when the article does not substantiate any of the points mentioned apart from that some frozen mummies did show signs of atherosclerosis.


 * You are correct. This is pretty clearly another one of those cases where one or two articles are published about Inuit people claiming something to be apocryphal and it is later found that the articles themselves (1993 is *not* recent!) are in fact apocryphal.  See, for example this 2017 work: https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673#ref-1
 * I'm removing the improperly sourced information from the article per your suggestion.
 * Fatbatsat (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV challenge: Genocide by Canada in the 20th and 21st centuries Sub-section
It looks like someone created the title of this sub-section from the viewpoint of a single source within that sub-section, and a questionable and confusing usage of the word "genocide" is revealed. Fatbatsat (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the UN definition of genocide. Forcibly moving Inuit into settlements and removing Inuit children (such as happened in the Sixties Scoop) fall under the definition of genocide. Yuchitown (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * The current discussion however only references the "more than 1,000 women killed since 1980." The events you're talking about are mentioned earlier already. Alexrthomson (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)