Talk:Inuit cuisine

Pseudoscience?
Some of the claims in this article seem suspiciously pseudoscientific...primarily the accounts of the health benefits of seal meat: "Inuit food generates a strong flow of blood," "after the consumption of seal blood and meat, one can look at their (sic) veins in the wrist for proof of the strength that inuit food provides," "the person's blood becomes fortified and improves in color and thickness," "a commonality seen among hunters and young men is that they very rarely fall ill because of their high consumption of seal meat," and the anecdote about someone recovering from illness hours after consuming seal. I highly, highly doubt that there is any substantial scientific evidence to support that seal is some magical cure-all food. Also, "strong flow of blood" would have more to do with one's heart than anything else, so why is seal meat being heart-healthy (if it is) not mentioned? And what does "strong flow of blood" mean, anyway? Does it mean high blood pressure? Isn't that bad? Also, the claims of the benefits of seal meat noticeably manifesting themselves minutes or hours after consumption seems pretty dubious.

Thoughts? Comments? Someone really needs to revise this.

-Lamarcus (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinionated
This article seems overly opinionated about the benefits of Inuit food.

No science at all?
I also doubt there are any scientifical sources for the statements made in the article. The whole language of the article leaves me with the impression that the author is no native English speaker and causes me to think that we maybe see here an Inuit´s statement regarding a piece of his peoples culture. Of course this would be highly "POV" and not "neutral" but on the other hand I wonder whether neutrality is necessary for an article describing native traditions or not? - best regards, hansi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.211.143 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The statements are clearly not scientific - even from the current state of the article it becomes clear that these are believes and statements made by Inuit about their diet. It's perfectly o.k. to include this in the article, but it should be make clear that these are believes, and it shouldn't be presented as facts. Of course it would also be great if there are some real scientific findings about the benefits of this diet. Averell (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Add): One of the sources is from some medical publication (Kristen Borre). However, the cited parts sound anecdotal. It's not clear if their are actually meant to be research results or personal observations. Averell (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * About the author being a non-native English speaker, I didn't notice many of the original grammatical and spelling errors in this article until I looked at the history, and noticed its long list of grammatical revisions. I understand the mentality behind this article a bit more, but still, it should be made more clear that the non-scientific purported effects of seal meat consumption are mere traditional beliefs, not tested scientific fact. The claims sound silly anyway (blood noticeably thickening minutes after a meal?). -Lamarcus (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Superstitions
I think the use of the word superstitions here is not in line with other articles about believes and religion (I'm sure there's some Wikipedia guideline that applies here). Of course they are superstitions, but the same can be said in any other article containing any religious content. Calamarain (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Change title to Inuit cuisine?
Given that most similar articles/categories on Wikipedia are titled "Fooian cuisine", does it seem to anyone that this article title is rather Orientalist? It basically implies that other culture's food habits are a "cuisine" but Inuit foods just happen to be what they eat. Personally, it seems a bit dehumanising. I vote the article title change to Inuit cuisine, matching the French article Cuisine des Inuits. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - not really a strong opinion. However, cuisine seems to emphasize the cooking and preparation, while this article seems to be mostly about what is eaten, how the food is hunted and such things, instead the cooking or preparation. In this regard the "diet" title seems quite apt to me... see also Diet_(nutrition) and Cuisine. Averell (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nutrition
I came here to find out how humans can subsist on seal meat in the darkness for months at a time, and, alas, I was forced to look elsewhere on the internets. I stumbled across a seemingly good Discover Magazine article in the process, and summarized it in a new section, Nutrition. It's interesting stuff, and based on the research mentioned in passing in that one article, I suspect there are sufficient sources out there to beef up this article. If anyone's concerned about the un-science-y nature of what we're working with here (as some people appear to have been in August 2008), I'd suggest they check out the Patricia Gadsby article for possible leads. - Fullobeans (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This video uses scientific studies which really debunks that article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU


 * "Mic, the Vegan" is an ideologue who believes that humans are herbivores. The sources he cites either don't support his conclusions, are paywalled (discouraging people from checking them against his assertions), or are other ideologues.  I'd hesitate to give him credit for "debunking" anything. 47.208.65.188 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Argument for keeping this article as is
In my opinion this is one of the best articles in wikipedia, precisely for the reasons mentioned above. Talk of pseudoscience and "no science at all" should not apply in this case. Pseudoscience and science in general should only apply to articles relating to cultures that accept science as their guiding principle. Inuit culture has nothing to do with western science. Are the above posters wanting Inuit diet to be defined by non-Inuit or western worldviews? That would be a shame in my mind not to mention illogical/racist/colonial. If the scientific worldview MUST be honoured, please make a separate section. I applaud the powers that be at wikipedia for keeping this article as it is. I loved every word of it, inspite of, and possibly because it was not written by a native english speaker, which would have been out of place. LET'S KEEP WIKIPEDIA A GLOBAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION, NOT A WESTERN-ONLY CLUB. Thank you for reading and good luck in your pursuit of knowledge and growth. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMcAndrews (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) --MarkMcAndrews (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. The discussion from above is 2 years old, and the article has been rewritten since. Nobody has touched it for ages. The original problem was that some of the beliefs were present as objective facts, instead of beliefs. But this has already been changed. Averell (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Science should only apply to cultures that accept science? How can science be tied to any one culture? I can't fathom why anyone would openly prefer a Wikipedia article to be subjective instead of objective! The only thing "racist/colonial" here is the idea that science should be applied to some people and not to others...184.146.143.250 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Caribou/reindeer
In the Hunting section, it calls the animal caribou. In the caption of the picture of the meat, it says reindeer. Not a huge thing, but shouldn't it be one or the other for both? Techdude 42 (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:REFBLOAT
This article is hard to read because of over referencing. The phrase "Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location" is followed by no fewer than seven references. This is against WP and needs to be fixed. --Cornellier (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hair loss
Inuit are practically immune to hair loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:15C6:44DC:3551:F3A1 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Qallunaat
Inuit often are relentless in making known that they are not like Qallunaat in the sense that they do not eat the same food and they are communal with their food. Qallunaat believe that the person who purchases the food is the owner of the food and is free to decide what happens to the food.

This makes no sense, unless you've read the article from top to bottom ("Qallunaat" is defined, far above).

Moreover, the word "relentless" lacks the appropriate encyclopedic vibe.

This is too culturally idiomatic for my taste. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Inuit v Eskimo
The Yupik peoples article says they're culturally distinct from Inuit, which this article contradicts. The article claims it is about the cuisine of the Inuit people but that it also covers the Yupik people (whose cuisine has its own page) -- what's going on here? Should/does this article discuss just the cuisine of the Inuit people? Also, the term "Eskimo" is considered offensive by many Inuit according to the page on Inuit. If this article is really about Inuit cuisine it probably shouldn't be used here?Robynteague (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)