This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Let's all just calm down, breathe, have a good laugh about how incongruously serious this has gotten, and relax. Accept that nobody is interested in lying here, just in making the article reflect what they believe to be true. And then get back to working out how to write the best, most objective article we can. To specifically address the points at the head of this section:

• This article is most certainly not slander. ... You surely meant libel. Slander is spoken. ;-)
• "Nuttal 580" is a (poorly styled, perhaps) reference to "Nuttal, Mary. Encyclopedia of the Arctic", which is listed in the References section. So yes, it is a reference.
• "It's a source, but for things that are wrong" is, unfortunately, not an argument that's helpful in building this article. If we have a source that's not outright unacceptable (and Ethnologue is quite acceptable), we have an obligation to at least weigh what it says. Saying "it's wrong, so we won't put it in the article despite having a source" is intellectually equivalent to "it's true, so it goes in the article despite not having a source". Instead, we need sources for its wrongness. Even then, we need to consider saying "some sources say this, but others reject it".
• That "Esquimaux" is correct as (and only as) the plural of "Esquimau" has been covered. But I do wonder whether it really needs to be in the article at all. This is the English Wikipedia.
• We do need to address the ambiguity and scholarly dissension over the relationships and classification of various peoples. That said, saying "the whole article should be edited to reflect this" is a little over-dramatic. Some parts of the article really aren't about Aleuts, and one might think you were saying we ought to mention them anyway.
• Yes, "raw-meat eaters" has been pretty much debunked, so "Eskimo" isn't perpetuating an insult. But that's not what "pejorative" means! It means (to quote Wiktionary) "disparaging, belittling or derogatory", which is (for good or ill) largely to do with how people feel about it, not about what it means etymologically. (After all, "black" is just a name for a colour, so etymologically there's nothing wrong with it, yet some people feel it shouldn't be used of people...) Wikipedia is not making people think it's pejorative, it's reporting the fact that some people think that already.
• I happen to agree that "Inuit-Yupik" et al. seem to be absent from sources and are rightly at risk of deletion. I added the "Citation needed" template, but alas, it's been removed.

And on the question of sources, it's true that these sources aren't being used for the "pejorative" claim (well, one is attached to the sentence, but not directly like Nuttal and Ethnologue... which, by the by, I also tried to change). But " Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?" does in fact have the claim in question in its opening sentence, phrased thusly:

"...this name is considered derogatory in many other places [than Alaska]".

The other two discuss the matter in usage notes rather than in the definition, as one would expect from a dictionary. I'm not sure what "reason for that" you're suggesting—that those sources don't think it important? That's far from evident.

And lastly, your distaste for the difficulties in building good articles is understandable, and I hope you believe me when I say I sympathise, but you shouldn't ever mistake this state of disagreement for a wilful, united attack on the truth and on yourself. Apart from trolls and vandals, people are just doing what they think is right. -- Perey ( talk) 12:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of editors here are quite calm. The only "lying" I've observed here is the user having a discussion on the talk page among her/his own sockpuppets in "The above solution is obviously not viable--Eskimo is not Pejorative" section, which does not do a lot for one's credibility. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 16:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Perey, thanks for your comments. All:

• My definition of lying is approximately "deliberately misrepresenting the facts," and if anyone can explain to me how certain editors of this page have not done that, or allowed/encouraged it to go on, I will be very shocked and surprised. And unless the intent is to lead away from the truth, sock-puppetry is simply an emotional appeal (consider a man behind a wall speaking in different voices), not lying. An emotional appeal is completely valid in this case (if slightly against the rules, though I was not actually aware of that), believe me I am very f***ing emotional about this issue. "Good Faith" and "quite calm" my ass, more like "trigger-happy ego trip." Disagreement is one thing; treating legitimate, commented edits like spam is entirely another.
• Yes, I did mean libel, but was too lazy/tired to look up the correct definition.
• Is it Mark Nuttal or Mary Nuttal? And shouldn't it include page numbers? And if I can't find its existence with a Google search, how useful is it for an online Encyclopedia, really? Still, thanks for the clarification
• On Ethnologue, yes, I agree, basically, in spite of the inflammatory tone of my earlier statements. But that is WHY it does not belong in the first sentence of the article-- it says something that essentially disagrees with the vast majority of qualified sources on the subject, and that is what is being referenced!! And, the other sources are not being referenced. And, as I said, if they were, the first sentence would be too long and of questionable encyclopedic value, leading the reader to believe that the most important part of the word is the controversy over it, which is NOT the case presented by ANY reference.
• Aleuts/Alutiqs-- Look, I completely agree, and all I was meaning to say there with "whole article..." is that if you change the opening lines to better reflect reality, there are other parts of the article that have to be changed for consistency.
• I did think about adding "citation needed," to inuit-yupik etc, but frankly, it's clear from the talk page that it was made up, and clear who made it up.
• >>>Wikipedia is not making people think it's pejorative, it's reporting the fact that some people think that already.<<< Well, again, not correct so long as it is in the title sentence. Now,the following is completely and totally beside the point as Perey and I are mostly agreed on the key issues, but for the sake of a thorough response I have to point out that etymology does have its place in discussions like this, and that there is a completely legitimate argument (which I agree does not necessarily hold in every instance) for not simply calling people "black"! Black is not an NOT an ethnicity, it is, yes, a colour, which indicates approximately as much about genetic code as calling someone "human," i.e., "had ancestors somewhere where the sun was hot." No such issue exists for the word "Eskimo."
• I stand corrected on the UAF Alaska Native language center [1] source, sorry about that. I am slightly confused as to Perey's meaning "(well, one is attached to the sentence, but not directly like Nuttal and Ethnologue... which, by the by, I also tried to change)". I am not sure what this is referring to. Please clarify?
• The other two sources? No, this issue has nothing to do with importance. We can agree that calling someone an Eskimo can be rude, and that saying that someone is something you know they do not want to be called is, generally, wrong. We can even, reluctantly, probably agree that that is probably worth mentioning in Wikipedia. What we cannot agree is that it should be in the title sentence. Let me clarify, in retrospect, why it is in the first sentence of the http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/ passage, and not in the other two references: it is because that page is specifically and only on the exact question of whether "Inuits" should be called "Eskimos" and vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.146.176 ( talk) 09:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

All right, within 24 hours of the page protection being lifted. To address your lengthy comments, sock puppetry violates community standards, which is why at least some of your sockpuppet accounts were [ blocked]. You don't have any problem with your actions of creating several accounts and IP-hopping to attempt to bolster your agruments, but such behavior flies in the face of honest discussion.

The end note "Nuttall 580" refers to page 580 in "Nuttall, Mary. Encyclopedia of the Arctic. New York: Routledge, 2005. ISBN  978-1-57958-436-8" listed in the references (right below the "Notes" section). Ethnologue is cited throughout Wikipedia and represents a neutral point of view. Aleuts and Alutiiq are distinct groups, with the Alutiiq related to Yupik. If you feel otherwise, then start trying to write in peer-reviewed journals, because that view goes against verifiable, published, secondary sources. Inuit-Yupik is in use in academia. "Inuits" is not a term; Inuit is the plural. I added sources that User:CambridgeBayWeather had previously presented on the talk page. You clearly have an agenda; however, it goes against cited sources. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hey, calm down. Again, I do not know why you are simply reversing my edits wholesale without considering your actions, and you will force me to elevate my claim against this article, and the behaviour of its editors, if you do not cease and desist. I left your citation and the statement in place. Nope, no agenda. Just trying to make sure the article is accurate. And I have done my best to moderate any sense of "opinion" I may previously have injected. I did not delete any cited information (as I think you implied in commenting the edit?), or any citation. I simply moved it, and not very far at that. But you have deleted the citation which I did add, which fully justifies the edits I made. I have also justified my edits on this Talk page, and there has been no response to my comments. Furthermore, please check the article: I made no changes at all on the Aleut/Alutiq question, because I realize that issue has many sides to it, and one issue at a time. The statement that I added that the term "Inuit-Yupik" is not in widespread use is simply a fact, and needs no citation. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is in widespread use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 07:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, the "pejorative" issue appears to have now been (essentially) resolved. Starting RfC on Aleut/Alutiq issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 07:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, even with my recent edits (apparently) accepted, I still have major issues with this article. I'll start with the beginning. The first sentence: "Eskimo is a term for the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland" is WRONG. Not, like, partly wrong, but completely, utterly wrong. In the first case, it leaves out the Gwich'in Athabsakan people, who live at the top of Alaska, further North than the majority of people being referred to here, but, as Athabaskans, are Native Americans and definitely not Eskimos!! This has already been stated by Cambridge Bay Weather on this Talk page. Why nothing has been done about this in the midst of all the superfluous crap about the pejorative of a non-pejorative term, I have no idea, but something is damn well going to get done about it now. Secondly, the article's first sentence also essentially denies the existence, more ambiguously, of a great number of other peoples who live further South than the Gwich'in, but not in most cases any further South that the Alutiiq or some of the Canadian groups. These are for example, at the very least, not just the further South Athabaskan tribes in Alaska and Canada as well, but the Tlingit, the Haida, the Tsimshian, and the Eyak as well. Please don't ask me to cite my source on this, because it is a well known fact, and anyone reading this article who knows anything at all about the subject at hand is pretty much going to laugh at Wikipedia. I personally do not know very much about non-Athabaskan, non-Inuit peoples in Northern Canada, but unless I am much mistaken, all of these, including the Canadian Athabaskans, fall under the term "First Nations Peoples." In Alaska, all fall under either the heading "Athabaskan" or "Pacific Northwest Native American Tribes," and then, again, those annoying Aleuts, depending on who you are talking to, the time of day, and how much a given anthropologist has had to drink. There is a Wikipedia article which can be linked to calling these people "Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast" but this title could be extremely misleading in this context. Also, I have a problem with the language used in the first sentence: "is a term for the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the " This is poor and clunky language. "Indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited" in particular is completely redundant. Given the above reasoning, I am changing the first sentence to read as follows: "Eskimo refers to the indigenous peoples of the arctic and subarctic from eastern Siberia across Alaska, Canada, and Greenland, while specifically not including the First Nations Peoples of Canada, the Athabaskan tribes, or the Pacific Northwest Native American Tribes of Alaska linking this to the "Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast" article"

Realize that I have deleted (United States) and (Russia) from this sentence. These are completely irrelevant to the debate, as it is physical regions, not political entities, that are being referred to here. Furthermore, I do not know what is meant by "Northern circumpolar", but the prior article had that but was linked to "arctic circle" which (A) is not a region, and (B) if it was a region like, say, "North of the arctic circle", would be wrong because there are plenty of people way North and way South of it.

As for what I am using, I think that Alaska, Canada, Siberia, and Greenland is quite sufficient to cover "Eskimo" from East to West, and Arctic and Subarctic will do from North to South.

I'm just going to leave the whole Aleut question alone, because they don't need to be specifically excluded from this statement (they are at least as much Eskimos as they are anything else besides a tiny population of historically mistreated and nearly forgotten people on the Aleutian chain). Anyway, there are probably Viking descendants living in Northeast Canada that don't need specifically excluded either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 11:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The middle and end of the introduction still need to be re-worked. For one thing, there is too much in there that needs a separate heading (or possible needs deleted, given the lack of citations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 12:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Transferable copy-paste from sources to page: Section History

• http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ea210/aleut.htm : According to Edward J. Vajda, archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests that the direct ancestors of the Eskimo tribes may have migrated over the Bering Strait (or over the Bering land bridge existing at that time) as early as 10,000 years ago. From their base in what is now Western Alaska, they diverged into what became two separate ethnic groups: the Eskimos proper and the Aleut, who populated the chain of islands stretching from Alaska almost to Kamchatka. This division apparently took place before the tribes developed their techniques of sea hunting. The terms for bow and arrow in both language groups derive from a common source, but words relating to maritime hunting are entirely different in Eskimo and Aleut and thus must have developed separately, and after the move into the sea zone.
• Nikolai N. Dikov (1977), Archaeological Sites of Kamchatka, Chukotka, and the Upper Kolyma. The Russian text of Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Kamchatki, Chukotki i Verkhnei Kolymy by N. N. Dikov (Moscow: Nauka, 1977) was translated into English by Richard L. Bland, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Shared Beringian Heritage Program, Anchorage, Alaska, 2003: Okladnikov supposed it possible to assign the coastal antiquity of Chukotka to at least three periods of development of early Proto-Eskimo culture: Old Bering Sea, Punuk, and Thule.

-- Kmoksy ( talk) 14:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, if somewhat irrelevant to the article in its current form. And yet, both the Alutiiq and the Aleut use (slightly differing) Baidarkas--sea kayaks-- whereas the Yupik and (as far as I know) the Inuit do not. So what exactly is a sea kayak, if not something used for maritime hunting? "The kayaks of the Unangax and Alutiiq (Sugpiaq) called, respectively, iqyax and qayaq, were distinguished from other sea craft by the split bow, which increased the seaworthiness and speed of the craft. Unangax and Alutiiq (Sugpiaq) hunters wore distinctive bentwood visors with sea lion whiskers. These visors provided protection from glare as well as a visual symbol of the status of the hunter. The number of sea lion whiskers attached showed the successes in hunting." source: http://www.alaskanative.net/en/main-nav/education-and-programs/cultures-of-alaska/unangax-and-alutiiq/

Hey, so this source ( https://www.ethnologue.com/language/esk) is not a legitimate source for "considered pejorative by many", and Uyvsdi keeps deleting my reference tags. [I am user 14.200.69.23 on a different computer, as is fairly clear if you've been paying attention to the edits; I happen to have two different computers in two different places, over which I am being bullied and harassed].

The source(Ethnologue) is a general encyclopedic entry, and is in conflict with the dominant specialized literature on the subject, and is therefore simply wrong. That is to say, the source is obsolete, out of date, and not legitimate. To use the incorrect statement of an incorrect source 'Eskimo is pejorative' or, to be exact: '"Eskimo"(pej.)', as a source for a statement that is (arguably) verifiably true makes no sense at all. Because Uyvsdi is continually deleting the citation tags, intended to foster semi-enlightened debate on the subject (not to start/continue an edit war), I am going to delete the reference wholesale, and leave it at that. There is, in fact, a reference already cited in this Wikipedia article that says "considered pejorative in many...places" as an exact quote, and to appease the screaming masses, I am going to add that reference to the statement, but this damned well better be the end of the debate. I do not see how supporting an arguable statement with a certifiably incorrect source helps anyone's case, this article, or Wikipedia in general, and if the pressing of the point continues, someone (probably Uyvsdi) is going to have to lose their editing privileges over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 03:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to add one further point: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/esk directs to the Ethnologue article on "Inupiatun, Northwest Alaska," and this is one of the very areas where Eskimo is decidedly not pejorative, and that really throws the whole source into an even worse light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 04:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As this debate continues, in the interests of assuming good faith, I will attempt to start the discussion by summing the opposing arguments. On one side, we have people who still seem to believe that Ethnologue is a reliable source for this subject. On the other hand, I have stated that I think that is not reliable, because it is a general source which states something (that "Eskimo" is by definition pejorative) which is in conflict with the dominant literature sources on the subject (which say that Eskimo might be taken as pejorative, but is not etymologically so). Assuming that people are indeed engaged in good faith editing, I do not understand why they have not fully responded to these statements. Secondly, let me point out that the Ethnologue source refers to a language, not to a people. "Eskimo", used as a language group, is widely done throughout academia, and there is no way to substitute that. How, then, can it be pejorative? Thirdly, please also realize that the particular Ethnologue article linked to is on "Inupiatun" language, which not only is a subclass of Eskimo languages, but is also the language of a people who essentially choose to be called "Eskimos" over "Inuit", even though they technically are Inuit. Although of course we all wish everyone would communicate more specifically (say, "Inupiat") when they refer to a group of people (I am an Alaskan, and I kind of prefer not to be called "American"), I think we all know that that is not always going to happen. Lastly, the citation does not clearly support the claim that the term is "considered... pejorative." Rather, it is the calling of things pejorative in nature, by sources like this, based on incomplete evidence, that we have to have such difficult debates as the one we are now having. So to me at least, it seems to be an open and shut case. Can all who are invested or have input on this please comment on this? And can we keep this polite and reasonable from here on out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 08:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, to demonstrate good faith-- though I think I've kind of feel that I've bent over backwards in the face of incessant Wikilawyering in this regard already-- I'm putting in the Ethnologue article on the "Inuktitut" (Eastern Canadian) language, because I've no wish to step on other people's editing, just to have a critically written article. The Inuktitut link is at least more appropriate than the link to "Inupiatun", since it's a reasonable perspective that the term "Eskimo" is largely considered pejorative in Eastern Canada, as opposed to Alaska. If the reference has not been fully justified over a period of time (say, what, two weeks?) I think it had better be removed. Again, I attempted to do this by use of reference tags, but kept getting them deleted, so that doesn't seem to be an acceptable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 05:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Alutiiq (also known as Sugpiaq, Eastern Aleut, Pacific Yupik, Kana[8] or Pacific Eskimo[8])" is not true or partial true. The name "Kana" not found in the source 8. But, The "Kana" or "KANA" is Kodiak Area Native Association. Or, the name "Kana" is Kanaaĝin? The Yupik Eskimo people of Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula are Alutiiq ~ Sugpiaq (in Unangan: Kanaaĝin [lit. «Kodiak Islander»]) and not Unangan (Real Aleut). The "Eastern Aleut = Alutiiq" is not true. Because, using of this name is "Eastern Aleut = an Unangan Aleut dialect". The Aleut (Unangan) language is three main dialects: Attuan Aleut, Atkan Aleut (Western Aleut), and Eastern Aleut. See my contributions the page of Aleut people. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

correction

Yeah, OK, I got the reference for Kana wrong. It is in fact: http://www.aaanativearts.com/alaskan-natives/alaskan_native_cultures.htm And I also checked the Eastern vs. Western Aleut thing, and you are at least correct that there is a lot of ambiguity when one says "Eastern Aleut" because a lot of the Unangan people are referred to that way, so thanks for that. I was trying to shorten the sentence, but better just say that "Aleut" is a common self-referential for the Alutiiq people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Alutiiq Eskimos, also referred to as Kana" of source "aaanativearts.com" is fake and not verifiable by reliable sources or other sources. In the terminology of Eskimology, the "Eastern Aleut" used for Eastern Aleut (Unangan) dialect and tribes, but not used for Sugpiaq ~ Alutiiq people, the "Western Aleut" used for Western Aleut (Unangan) dialect and tribes, but not used for all Aleuts (Unangans). The ethnonyms of Sugpiaq ~ Alutiiq people: endonym Sugpiaq [sg] Sugpiak [dual] Sugpiat [pl] (before Awa'uq Massacre) and exonym Alutiiq [sg] Alutiik [dual] Alutiit [pl] (after Awa'uq Massacre < from Russian Алеутъ Кадьякскiй «Kodiak Aleut») -- Kmoksy ( talk) 00:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What is your justification for saying that the aaanativearts.com source is "fake"? As in fact you appear to have none I am re-inserting the statement and the reference. If you are questioning the fact that there is a map of Alaska with "Aleut and Alutiiq" shown in one color, this merely serves to underscore my point on this entire issue-- there are many such maps. The site itself in fact does list the Alutiiq under "Yupik", and I assure you it is far from fake. It could still be mistaken, but as you have provided no source contradicting what has been said, I'm afraid it must stay until you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "Kana" is a hapax legomenon and fake. The using of "Kana" in the reliable sources or other sources? Where? Only used in "aaanativearts.com", only! Other sources, none! -- Kmoksy ( talk) 00:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, you provide no justification for your statements. Repeating yourself does not make you more correct. The fact that no other sources are immediately visible on a google search does not mean there are none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources, reliable sources??? -- Kmoksy ( talk) 01:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For Kanaagin, the one below. But I think it's a pretty fair assumption that Kana is an abbreviation of that, since we have sources for both, and the existence of an Alutiiq village built after 1880 named Kana-tak. Here is the source: "THE ROLE OF ECOLOGICAL BARRIERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURAL BOUNDARIES DURING THE LATER HOLOCENE OF THE CENTRAL ALASKA PENINSULA" (PhD dissertation) https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 01:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In the page Eskimo, "but also known as Pacific Yupik, Pacific Eskimo,[7], or Kana[agin],[8][9] and often self-referred to as Aleut(Russian: алеут)[10]" is partial not true. The "Kana = Kanaagin" is speculative and this synthesis was founded on Wikipedia. Original research! The source nr. 8: Page 18: The Supiaq people on Kodiak Island were called Kad‘iak Aleut by the Russians as well as Kaniaga (Koniag), a name that came from the Unangan designation Kanaagin (Clark 1984). The traditional terms Qikertarmiut refers to Sugpiat affiliated with Kodiak Island, while Ugaassarmiut identifies those from the Ugashik River drainage (Morseth 2003:5). < Richard VanderHoek 2009, The role of ecological barriers in the development of cultural boundaries during the later holocene of the Central Alaska peninsula [degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. Yes, the name Kaniaga (used in old-script Russian), Kaniag or Koniag (used in earliest English), and Kanaagin (used in Unangan Aleut and its true orthography is Kanaaĝin) using for Western Sugpiaq (esp. Insular Western Sugpiaq in the Kodiak Island; in Sugpiaq language: old name is Kaniagmiut lit. «people of Kodiak Island», new name is Qik'rtarmiut lit. «people of the Island»). The author of source nr. 8 (Richard VanderHoek) said to us: a name that came from the Unangan designation Kanaagin. The "Kanaagin" is used in Unangan Aleut language and not used in English language. This is an etymological explanation and not alternative English name for this people of Sugpiaq. The term "Kana" (only found in source nr. 9: aaanativearts.com) is a hapax legomenon and it is foggy (in Sugpiaq: tumananguq) and fake. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 07:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Kana = Kanaagin" would be speculative, but I only said that on Talk, not in my edits. And I have given sources for both names. "Not in English" is a bit of a ridiculous argument-- none of the words given are English, only the modifiers, e.g. "Pacific." I think we've reached 3RR though, and I'm not sure this is worth arguing further. The real problem is that you still have not justified why you think the original source is unreliable. And my ability to speculate in fact does render your "hapax legomenon" claim completely unreasonable. Nonetheless, if someone other than Uyvsdi(who as far as I am concerned has forfeited his/her right to contribute to this article) can render a (polite, well-reasoned) opinion, I will abide by that, because I am really sick of arguing this point, which I see as extremely trivial. Otherwise, it stays, and I am quite adamant about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.69.23 ( talk) 13:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

second correction--on "Kana"

OK, having investigated the source "www.aaanativearts.com" more thoroughly, and this issue in general, I have to revise my opinion. I now do not believe that the latter source is reliable for this subject. I do not know if it classifies as "hapax legomenon", but it is possible. Since it is possible I'm afraid we will have to leave it out. I am sorry to everyone for the stir I have caused in regard to this subject. I genuinely believed that the source was reliable and the claim therefore certifiable. Thanks to Kmosky, both for catching my mistake and being stubborn about it.

The synthesis of Kana is speculative and this synthesis was founded on Wikipedia, both "Kana = Kanaagin" and "Kana = Kana-tak". The Kanatak map in the newsletter of Native Tribe of Kanatak ( Volume 18, Issue 4, April 2013). Kanatak is a tribal village of Western Sugpiaq (~ Alutiiq) on the Alaska Peninsula. The people of Kanatak are possibly a part of Ugaassarmiut («People of Ugashik»). In the Carl Waldman's book Atlas of the North American Indian (first edition 1993, second edition 2000, third edition 2009) [pp:333-337 : Contemporary Native Nations in the United Nations (with Reservations):] 91. Native Village of Kanatak (Aleut). In this book: Aleut = Unangan [True Aleut] and Sugpiaq [False Aleut], Inuit = Siberian Yupiks and Inupiat [Alaskan Inuit]. -- Kmoksy ( talk) 08:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"...this synthesis was founded on Wikipedia..."

"Kana = Kanaagin" and "Kana = Kana-tak" are indeed speculative. "Kana" was not 'synthesized' on Wikipedia, nor has it been proved to have been 'synthesized' anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 09:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This article, as currently written and in recent versions, may now show and certainly has shown clear bias to the point of libel against the collective people of the Alaska. It also shows bias against the Yupik peoples of Alaska and Siberia. More arguably, it shows bias specifically against the Alutiiq (Pacific Yupik) and Aleut people. This article is suspected of being primarily written by individuals who are not Yupik and not Alaskan, and not sufficiently acquainted with the issues pertaining to the subject of this article. It is likewise suspected that there has been, in general, insufficient commentary and critique by Alaskans and by people of Yupik descent in the building of this article. There are references cited in prominent sections of this article that show clear bias, and these references have been "protected" by people who are exhibiting mob-like tendencies towards the edits of anyone who dares question the status quo. Unbiased, informed, certifiably expert help is needed with this article, as the standard Wikipedia process appears to have failed in the editing of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.148 ( talk) 10:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the article to before the copyright vios as per Wikipedia:Copy-paste ( Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). Info was pasted from here - Moxy ( talk) 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can revisit the discussion of what the scope of this article should be? It's been contested throughout all the archives of the talk page. When possible, I've been disambiguating articles that link here. Those that discuss specific ethnic groups are easily to disambiguate. Interestingly the term "Eskimo is often used incorrectly in Wikipedia, for instance, referring to Athabaskan peoples.

The articles that can't be disambiguated, that do need to link here, are the ones dealing with the term "Eskimo," e.g. Canadian English#Racial and ethnic groups; the ones dealing with 18th- and 19th-century race scientists, such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon#Racial studies; idioms using the term "Eskimo," mainly the phrase "sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo;" and pop culture songs, comics, and children's books, etc., such as Noggin the Nog#Plot and characters.

I'd like to propose that this article focus on the term "Eskimo," its etymology and historical uses, with links to all related language and ethnic group articles. The bulk of the ethnographic and linguistic information could be moved to the appropriate articles. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 05:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Will wait for some community feedback before making any structural changes. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Sounds good to me. Though why limit it to historical uses? There are still current uses of the word. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, absolutely, since it seems very much in use in Russia as well Alaska. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 21:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eskimo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927064659/http://inuitcircumpolar.indelta.com/index.php?ID=99 to http://inuitcircumpolar.indelta.com/index.php?ID=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927064740/http://inuitcircumpolar.indelta.com/index.php?ID=214 to http://inuitcircumpolar.indelta.com/index.php?ID=214

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

All these smart liberals and no one has figured out that there is a tribe of people called the Esk'etemc (a First Nations community at Alkali Lake, British Columbia, Canada.) and that is where the word comes from. Well I guess I'm just to stupid to be a genius.-- 69.14.41.250 ( talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"In Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" has fallen out of favor as pejorative and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit", "Alaska Natives", or terms specific to a particular tribe." Sentence structure here makes it seem like "Inuit" (and other endonyms) are being used as pejoratives/slurs in place of Eskimo, and while I'm almost 100% certain that its a typo, I just wanted to make sure before editing it. I don't live very close to Alaska, to say the least.-- R2Unit ( talk) 01:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I made a few edits to try to make the article clearer - they were several statements about Alaska that were out of place and appeared to refer to other places.

Uh, the term "Inuit" is definitely not un-pejorative if applied to a Yupik person. And the term "Alaska Native" is beyond ridiculous if applied to a Greenlander. The problem was not the sentence structure but your reading of it. 216.115.122.132 ( talk) 23:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there,

I noticed you reverted my edits, which was in fact a reversion to a prior state of the article.  This is OK but there are a few things you need to consider.  First, the reason for my own reversion: the article in current form is impossible to justify logically-- it does not make sense.  No one reading merely the intro to it can actually figure out what the word means, nor where it came from, nor if its use is legitimate, nor anything else.  Perhaps dysfunctional is the best word.

Second, the discrepancy between the U.S. and Canadian legal systems no longer exists at a federal level. This has been changed as of this year. It's worth noting too the distinction between U.S. law and Alaskan law. Under the U.S. constitution, the USA is very much governed according to a federal system. That is, it has powerful checks on the power of the national government (vs. the States). Therefore the distinction between federal law of the U.S. and the laws of the State of Alaska is not a trivial or academic one. Third, the discrepancy between the "politically correct" and "scientifically accurate", as well as the discrepancy in usage between " 'well-educated' speakers of the English language" and "everyone else" still exist and are quite glaring. They have to somehow be objectively addressed. It is not really possible to objectively address anything when the state of the intro looks like a lot of garbled facts (some of them misleading/inaccurate) thrown together. I appreciate that people's feelings are often non-linear, but the definition of a term and a concept in a Wikipedia, in the introduction at least, needs to be fairly linear and objective. That is, there needs to be clear and objective reference to both the problematic usage of the word, and to the scientific reason for which it has historically been used and indeed continues to be used in academic papers, though in the modern literature, no currently existing people is typically referred to. Fourth, the introduction of an objective article should be brief and clear. They say that brevity is the soul of wit. Well, for an encyclopedia, it is also the soul of objectivity. Fifth, when a very widespread term is also billed as a potentially offensive one, it needs to be made clear in what situations / for what reasons its use can be offensive, and in what situations / for what reasons its use might be justified, or at least understandable/forgivable. Sixth, in the above dialogue, I keep using the word "term". This is because "Eskimo" is really a word, not a concept to be fully explained. Even if one fully accepts that genetics and archaeology are truly sciences, which I do, it must be stated that the exact genetic, historical, and cultural descent of the Inuit(various)/Inupiaq and Yupik/Southern Yupik/Alutiq/Siberian-Yupik peoples, and even their relation to the Aleut or even the "indigenous" Native Americans, is not "well understood". However, as anyone very familiar with the science of climate change can tell you, just because something is not "well understood" and is rather politicized is not a good reason for ignoring the objective facts of the matter. If there is a debate over the "politcal correctness" of the Eskimo article, it is a debate over the term and its usage, not over the concept, which is very well summed up by the compound if slightly messy and misleading phrase "Inuit-Yupik". The main problem with retitling the article "Inuit-Yupik" is that it violates Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting original research, i.e. it essentially represents activism on the part of an arguably superior phrase. A strong argument can also be made against the utility of changing the name of the article to exclusively "Inuit-Yupik" without cross-referencing the word "Eskimo": that is, when some unsuspecting person uses google in the attempt to learn more about this very real group, as the premiere encyclopedia in the world, Wikipedia should still be the first hit and go-to place for people to learn about a fundamentally neutral concept, grouping, and scientific reference. I am copying this note to the "Talk" page, and reverting the article to the last form I had it in for now, please read through that version thoroughly before making changes. Thanks very much! 216.115.122.132 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi this is user IP 216.115.122.132, now writing from a different computer. I copy this message to user "CambridgeBayWeather". You (Admin Bbb23) reverted the edits I made on the "Eskimo" article recently.

Your point on "personal thesis" is well taken, and upon reflection I completely agree, at least as to the "style" in which it is written. I would probably disagree that it is worse in the they way you mention than the version before I changed it (to an earlier version mostly), since it at least has a clear, encyclopedic introduction. In any case, the article is in its current form is not acceptable or accurate.

I'm publishing the changes below to the introductory session and the "controversy" section. I ask that you please review them, before making changes, which I would suggest. Please also do this in light of the comments ("open letter...") I made to the talk page of the "Eskimo" article in conjunction with the edits I originally made. In this revision, I have attempted to remove all traces of "personal thesis" writing to the best of my humble and fundamentally, like anyone's, biased ability. Thanks very much, and here is the proposed revision of the two sections (note, edited to add grammar corrections and links):

The word Eskimo refers to the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia ( Russia), across Alaska ( United States), Canada, and Greenland. ^{[1] [2] [3]} Significant controversy surrounds the colloquial use of the term, and it no longer exists in most legal documents outside the State of Alaska.

According to the sciences of genetics and archaeology, there have been a few distinct migrations of peoples to the North American continent. One (or more) of these groups, with migrations beginning roughly between eight and ten-thousand years ago, encompasses two main peoples (collectively sometimes known as "Eskimo"). They are the Inuit of Canada, Northern Alaska (sub-group " Inupiat"), and Greenland, and the Yupik of eastern Siberia and Alaska. The Yupik comprise speakers of four distinct Yupik languages: one used in the Russian Far East and the others among people of Western Alaska, Southcentral Alaska and along the Gulf of Alaska coast. A third northern group, the Aleut, is closely related to the Eskimo. They share a relatively recent, common (" Paleo-Eskimo") ancestor, and a language group ( Eskimo-Aleut).

--Controversy--

There is a good deal of controversy with regards to the word "Eskimo".

Scientifically, it is difficult to replace the term "Eskimo", as it refers to a group defined by certain set of genetic and cultural traits shared by both the Inuit and Yupik peoples. Alternative terms, such as Inuit-Yupik, have been proposed, ^[4] but none has gained widespread acceptance.

Culturally, beginning in the late 20th century, numerous indigenous people have viewed the use of the term "Eskimo" as offensive, in part because it was used by people who discriminated against them. ^{[5] [6]} On the other hand, "Eskimo" is a widely used --and almost universally understood-- term in many languages and in most parts of the world.

Linguistically, and in contrast to popular belief, ^[1] the word does not have an offensive meaning. ^[7]

Legally, in Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" has fallen out of favor as pejorative and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit", " Alaska Natives", Greenlander, or terms specific to a particular tribe. The Canadian Constitution Act of 1982, sections 25 ^[8] and 35 ^[9] recognized the Inuit as a distinctive group of aboriginal peoples in Canada. In Alaska, the situation is more complicated. In 2016, U.S. President Barrack Obama signed HR4238 into law, replacing the word "Eskimo" with the words "Alaska Native" in the U.S. federal law known as the Department of Energy Organization Act and the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act of 1976. ^[10] In the legal institutions, as well as the linguistic and cultural traditions of Alaska, however, "Alaska Natives" refers to all indigenous peoples of Alaska. The term is applied to not only such groups as the Aleut, who share a recent ancestor with the Inuit and Yupik groups, but also to the largely unrelated ^[11] indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and the Dene, who descend from other, unrelated major language and ethnic groups. Substitution of the term "Eskimo" with "Alaska Native" replaces a more specific term with a more general one, whereas global trends in cultural sensitivity are in the reverse direction. Virtually no indigenous person in Alaska, however, would view the term "Alaska Native" as pejorative; this stands in contrast with labeling the Yupik or even the Inupiat peoples of Alaska with the word "Inuit", as they have generally rejected that name.

Too many people who too clearly have no idea what they are talking about keep editing this article, esp. with regards to the idea of "Eskimo" as a pejorative term. This article still exists because a vote was taken to keep the article with this title in the English Wikipedia, and for good reason. If people want to have another vote, maybe that makes sense. Otherwise, there needs to be a stop to sabotaging the truth and utility that is in the article. That is, there needs to be an enlightened consensus, and we need to stick to it. Key word being enlightened. Mob rule is not serving this article well. This is the English Wikipedia, not the "politically correct words" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.243.35 ( talk) 04:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention race in this article? It seems to be that the science of genetics has discredited anything that could be inferred from racial descriptions. Ethnicity doesn't seem like an appropriate substitute, so unless there are any objections I'm going to remove the mention entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretkeeper12 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

as any social scientist should be able to tell you, while race is not a biological reality it is still a social reality. people have been and are categorized by race in societies in the world. while there is no basis for these categories in any biological sense they are still important and racialism and racism are still social issues which need to be addressed. simply ignoring the problem does not make it go away and suggesting that we do so only betrays an appalling lack of awareness of issues faced by racially oppressed people/s. eristikophiles ( user talk) 20150711:0355 EST —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow lots of inaccuracies here! "...race is not a biological reality"... Prove it.

And... "It seems to be that the science of genetics has discredited anything that could be inferred from racial descriptions."... Actually. it has done no such thing. The opposite, really. Try at least reading the Wikipedia article, folks, because the debate still rages in a lot of ways: /info/en/?search=Race_(human_categorization) Just because race as a narrow construct is obviously pretty useless (you don't need much in the way of genetics to figure that out, just a halfway reasonable brain) does not mean that it is entirely useless. Is race overwhelmingly a social construct? Yeah. Are the physical attributes of race not based in genetics? Oh, but they most certainly are. Just because it is hard to say exactly how they are does not change anything. Please ee Hartigan, John (June 2008). "Is Race Still Socially Constructed? The Recent Controversy over Race and Medical Genetics". Science as Culture. 17 (2): 163–193. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.192.65 ( talk) 13:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Myths and Misconceptions" section is misleading, imprecise, and not cited. Those ideas are really not myths, and although in some ways they are misconceived, that does not entirely make them misconceptions either. i.e. they have basis in fact, even if the facts are somewhat fuzzy around the edges (e.g. what constitutes a "permanent" structure for a largely nomadic people?) and not well understood by the general populace. That "citation needed" tag has been on there nearly a year, and no one has done anything about it. So, shall we improve it or just blot the whole thing? I can see the value including some of the information presented there in a more accurate and clear, cited form, but unless someone wants to say something about it, I will probably just delete it to save an elongated debate over a section that was clearly jammed in there without much consideration. Thanks for reading / giving input. 216.115.122.132 ( talk) 03:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions this. I assume it is a language. If it is verifiable, perhaps it should be redlinked, or otherwise created. A language would almost certainly meet notability standards. 69.125.84.132 ( talk) 21:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Megalophias ( talk) 17:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eskimo. 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/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/20070206132807/http://www.uaf.edu:80/anlc/langs/cy.html to http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070910134859/http://www.eu.spb.ru:80/univ/rector/index.htm to http://www.eu.spb.ru/univ/rector/index.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This article spends a lot of time discussing the term Eskimo and whether or not it's offensive, but it never really clarifies differences and similarities between different groupings of Eskimo and why they're considered different, but still collectively Eskimo. Can someone address (and possibly add to the article) the following questions about the groups?:

Eskimo: What makes an Eskimo an Eskimo? Geographic location? Language? Culture? Genetics? Why are they subdivided into two or three different groups, but still collectively considered Eskimo?

Language, culture, and genetics. All of the above.

Iñupiat: Are the Iñupiat of Alaska the 'same' as the Inuit of Canada and Greenland? Are there any Alaskan Inuits who are not Iñupiat? Are there any Iñupiat in the Yukon? Or is it purely nomenclature? In Alaska, they're called Iñupiat, cross into Canada and it's Inuit? Or are these two groups different?

The Iñupiat language and culture are pretty close to that of the Canadian Inuit (much closer than the Yupik are to either group). There are Iñupiat everywhere in the world. :-) But if what you're asking is whether they were historically found in Yukon, no. The Yukon territory is in Canada, and was historically inhabited by Athabascan groups ("Indians"). The Yukon *River* flows across Alaska, and there are indigenous people there, but again, mostly Athabascans. Eskimos historically were coastal people, and didn't wander inland too far. Their lifestyle was dependent on hunting sea mammals, for the most part. There is only one Iñupiat group in Alaska that historically lived inland, the Nunatamiut, who made their living by hunting caribou.

Yupik, Inuit, and Iñupiat: Why are these (two or three?) groups all put together under the umbrella term Eskimo? What makes them different enough from one another to be distinct groups, but similar enough to still all be Eskimos?

The Yupik language is different from the Iñupiat language (though in the same language family). They are not Inuit by any reasonable definition of that term. Think of Italian and Spanish (both Romance languages, but different from each other) or German and English (both Germanic languages, but different from each other). As a direct illustration of the difference, both "Yupik" and "Iñupiaq" mean "real people". If you say these words, you can see how they are related, without being the same. The two languages are not mutually intelligible. Using German and English again, the German "mutter" is clearly similar to the English "mother", but that doesn't mean that a speaker of one language can understand the other.

Aleut: Why aren't the Aleut considered another grouping of Eskimo? How are they similar enough to the Yupik, Inuit, and Iñupiat to be "closely related," but different enough from those groups to not actually be considered Eskimo?

The Aleut language is in the same language group, but much more distantly related. Their word for themselves is "Unangax", pretty far from the other two. The cultures also differ quite a bit.

And please don't tell me to look at all of the respective individual articles. THIS article should clarify what an Eskimo is or isn't, why different groups are similar enough to be collectively called Eskimo, and why related groups are seemingly a little too different to fall under the Eskimo umbrella. I'm asking in all seriousness, as it's not clear to me what the difference between Inuit and Iñupiat is, why these two are lumped with Yupik as Eskimo, and why the Aleuts don't pass the "Eskimo test."

Hope this helps.

Thank you. 69.244.114.231 ( talk) 00:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Inuit and Iñupiat/Iñupiaq: Iñupiaq is a sub-group of Inuit peoples (and the name of the language of that sub-group). Iñupiat refers to a member or (plural) members of the Iñupiaq people, so substitutes for Iñupiaq when used in the universal sense.

Inupiaq and Inuit generally are "sub-grouped" together with Yu'pik as Eskimo due to similar language and culture. They are "broader-grouped" together with Aleut due being in the same language family and due to date of migration, and arguably being of similar cultures. Even so, Wikipedia's task is to define the word/concept, not to justify the grouping.

"The Aleut language is in the same language group, but much more distantly related."

Yeah but that doesn't really answer the original question: "Why aren't the Aleut considered another grouping of Eskimo? ...THIS article should clarify what an Eskimo is or isn't, "

So, to answer that, I'm editing the article with info on the Eskimo-Aleut language group

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eskimo. 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/20120403110006/http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html to http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403110006/http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html to http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010412000000/http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/E0212400.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318173645/http://www.ostgroenland-hilfe.de/en/projekt.html to http://www.ostgroenland-hilfe.de/en/projekt.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Why is Eskimo considered offensive just because it is supposedly derived "from eaters of raw meat"? They do eat raw meat, don't they? What's wrong with that?

Probably because most people do not eat raw meat. 202.123.130.53 ( talk) 06:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Steak tartar, anyone? Sashimi? Raw oysters? Raw meat is a common delicacy in Western culture (and consumed in many other cultures). But the origins of a word don't matter in the least, lots of ethnic slurs have perfectly inoffensive meanings. "Nigger" just means "black", but "nigger" is extremely offensive and "black" is not. People decide something is offensive because of context, other people use it to deliberately be offensive (or vice versa), and off you go. There are far stupider examples - I've seen people take offense at *transliterations*. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 06:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all Northern Natives are Eskimos. Alaska has Eskimos who self-identify as such. But you would never call the Culturally distinct Inuit or Innu in Labrador Eskimo, that shows ignorance and lack of respect for their customs and language. ;Rmm553 September 6, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmm553 ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly you wouldn't call Innu "Eskimo", since they are First Nations (related to Cree) and not remotely related to Inuit. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 06:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

My friend from Alaska told me that the word "Eskimo" is profoundly offensive where she grew up -- pretty much at the level of other "fighting words" slurs. I'm also pretty confident it's a slur in Canada. This makes me wonder if it's appropriate to use as the title of this article. I'm not sure what would be a reasonable alternative, though.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsam ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not know where your friend grew up in Alaska, but I would have to say that your friend is probably largely incorrect (I grew up in Alaska, and Eskimo is kind of an uneducated term, but that doesn't make it an offensive one), but what is the point of the argument? It is not a "slur" in Canada, it is a term regarded as offensive by some people in some parts of Canada, which the article says. The "reasonable alternative" of which you speak, is that if you are talking to someone who may be sensitive about the name of their ethnic origins (e.g., to refer to a Inuit person from Alaska as "Inupiat", or better yet a more specific local tribe), and for people to not choose to be offended when other people use broad, umbrella terms that have use inside a certain context, and are imperfectly applied elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.145 ( talk) 01:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Eskimo is sometimes considered offensive mostly because it was, for a unfortunate period of history, in a specific region of Canada (and Greenland?) used in an offensive way, specifically to refer to people while doing highly offensive things to them, and while treating them in a highly offensive way. It is also a bit like saying "black people" or "white people" or "European people" or "Asian people" (though it is a bit more specific and in that sense not quite as bad as those terms) -- it is imprecise. That is, it refers to a wide range of people who may or may not want to be grouped in with a lot of other people, and who, at some point or another in their lives, will almost definitely feel inclined to self-identify as part of a more specific category. None of these things make the word "Eskimo" fundamentally offensive, or an ethnic slur. The idea that it is supposedly derived "from eaters of raw meat" is a myth, so the point is moot, as the article in its present form strongly alludes to. One of the main reasons "Eskimo" is a valuable term, and cannot be easily discarded, is that relates to the second and third migrations (as opposed to the first) from Siberia to North America. As such, it is a term which actually draws significant credence from the science of genetics. To "consider it offensive" or to invent new words so that other people will not be offended is largely just muddying the waters, in the former case taking umbrage at a linguistically reasonable (not pejorative) term, and in the latter case pure elitism, creating a false division between those who are educated and those who are not, those who prefer simple wording to those who prefer hyphens and political correctness.

This has been a horribly bitter debate on this very article, which I myself have been involved in, sad to say, and I think it points to a couple of things:

(1) Don't oppress people(s) and treat them like sh*t. If you do, no matter what you call them afterwards, they probably will not like you very much.

(2) Don't hold grudges for more than two or three generations (or preferably, at all, actually) and don't get offended at people using words not intended to offend you, and DO NOT correct other people merely because you think they are using a so-called offensive word. Instead, DO get offended when people act negatively towards other people, or when they speak negatively of other people, particularly when they make unfair generalizations, and speak in such a way that the third person, if present, could not help but get offended over.

We can't actually write these things into the article, but we can write this article, and others like it, in that spirit, and I can write these things here, on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.145.145 ( talk) 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

it seems that this debate needs to be revived, or at least revisited more thoroughly. the arguments made here that 'eskimo' is not a slur are 1- contrary to the lived experiences of said people/s, as well as 2- essentially equivalent to saying (from the position of privilege of not being in any of these groups) that one should simply "not be offended" when it is not the job of the offended to cease offense but rather the job of those doing the offending. also, 3- if the same argument were made that "nigger", "wog", or various other racial and ethnic slurs are somehow acceptable then i doubt the same result would arise; essentially this means that a differential standard is being applied here. i think that it is fairly obvious that the mere existence of this issue is sufficient to change the name of the article, with a redirect for those searching using it, and a more overt explanation in the article of exactly why the term is in fact offensive. ( Eristikophiles ( talk) 13:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Ah, see, the problem here is not with the word "eskimo", but with your idea of the the meaning of the word "offensive". You believe that the word "nigger" is offensive, probably because someone has told you that it is offensive, thus you choose to blindly repeat what you have been told. Indeed the word "nigger" is often used with the intention of giving offense, hence it is usually considered to be a "slur". And yet, in modern times it is, at least as often, used as a word of companionship. But the bottom line for any word having an entry in Wikipedia is this: does it uniquely represent a useful concept. And the bottom line, then, for the entry itself? Does it fairly and reasonably represent that concept. 69.162.192.65 ( talk) 13:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

   If a person of that culture says its offensive, then its offensive. Eskimo is NOT a proper term. A term that would "fairly and reasonably represent that concept" is the Inuit or First Nations of the North or Indigenous Peoples of the Far North. And yet you refuse to change the article name. People of color should not have to deal with professional organizations using such offensive and negative words in a misleading manner. There needs to be an article explaining how the term Eskimo IS a slur rather then miss lead people to a misunderstood education like this article is currently doing. This website is about free education to all, lets have that education be as correct as possible.  "Nigger", "chink", "cracker", all have this option on this website. This article is title should be renamed. 
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo 

A term that would "fairly and reasonably represent that concept" is the Inuit

Well, except for all the Eskimo people who are not Inuit. Specifically, the Yupik, who are the majority of Eskimo people in Alaska. There are about 35,000 Yupik, and only 13,500 Iñupiat (i.e., Inuit). Guess what? Many Yupik get offended if you call them Inuit. As well they might. It's like calling an Italian "French" or a Pole "Russian", or something of that nature.

66.230.113.14 ( talk) 04:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit-eskimo/

What is this? This guy is not ok. A term is a term and not an offense. From the point a European says the word "european" is offensive, will it become an improper term? This is really bullshit. Just take the challenge. I am a European, and I say the word European is offensive. We have to be called First Continent people. Please go write this to the article European. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.109.196 ( talk) 07:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for an edit that isn't exactly part of this debate but is related. Given the discord that apparently existed about this subject in the past, I thought it better to leave my suggestion here, rather than try to make the edit unilaterally. I was surprised by the introductory statement, "Eskimos are the indigenous circumpolar peoples who have traditionally inhabited...". It seems appropriate to edit this to say, "Eskimo... is a term used to refer to the indigenous circumpolar peoples who have traditionally inhabited...". Brennalhughes ( talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@ Brennalhughes: the change to the opening sentence was made in this edit [2] by Ardub23. The lead sentence previously had “is an English term for the“; their edit summary read “ WP:ISATERMFOR – Article is primarily about the people, not the word 'Eskimo'. I agree with you in being unhappy with the present wording; it makes it seem Wikipedia is authoritatively saying that word is the neutral term, when it isn’t. Perhaps the article should be split to “Eskimo” about the term and something like Inuit and Yupik peoples for the people, but I’m pessimistic people would support that. I like your suggestion though. Umimmak ( talk) 23:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

A reference[3] for the statement "Yu'pik of eastern Siberia" (as used in the intro of this article, this phrase includes both the "Siberian Yu'pik" and the Serenik peoples) has been added.

The Sirenik are ethnically a Yu'pik people, but their extinct language is more closely related to Chukchi than to other Yu'pik languages. The reference I added is a detailed one from The Smithsonian. Something more could perhaps be added to the intro to reflect this. Many Sirenik people now speak Russian, not Yupik. Some speak a dialect of Siberian Yupik, entirely distinct from the extinct Sirenik language. Cultural influence on them from the Chukchi, who are not generally considered to be closely related to the Inuit or Yupik groups, has historically been significant.

Sirenik relationship to Yupik vs Chukchi

The status of the Sirenik language is somewhat disputed, but the dispute centers around the question of whether Sirenik is a Yupik language, or whether Sirenik represents its own major branch of the Inuit-Yupik language family. Sirenik was geographically adjacent to Chukchi territory, and was influenced by it, but is absolutely part of the broader Inuit-Yupik language family. See page x in the Introduction of [4]. Dowobeha ( talk) 00:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• References

[1]. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chukchi

[2]. /info/en/?search=Sirenik_Eskimos

[3]. https://alaska.si.edu/culture_ne_siberian.asp?subculture=Yupik%20(Asiatic%20Eskimo)&continue=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.122 ( talk) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

[4] Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. By Michael Fortescue, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan. 2nd Edition. Alaska Native Language Center. 2010.