Talk:Eskimo/Archive 5

removed "netter of snowshoes" not what sources says....best get an academic source for this.- 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: This was originally correctly cited, which Fatbatsat incorrectly changed. I have since corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Best leave etymology for the body....Inuit and snowshoes ?....best use modern academic source for this.^[1].Moxy- 21:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The question is one of historical linguistics which is a bit outside the scope of the book. I can't find any more recent academic sources specifically discussing the etymology, though eaters of raw meat/fish seems discredited. I'm sorry about being frustrated, this dispute about the lead has gone on for weeks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Language Arts & Disciplines" is off topic?....anywas "the etymological problem is still unresolved" in the academic community,^[2]...and is what we in Canada have taught our children for decades^[3][4] We should not pick one for the lead sentence as per MOS:BEGIN , WP:WEIGHT , MOS:FIRST = because there is a clear debate on its origins.Moxy- 22:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I've gone and reverted everything, including Fatbatsat's edits, and changed the etymology to uncertain. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't use out of date sources to justify something that isn't true and disagrees with all available modern references-- the etymology isn't uncertain, that's colonial science and colonial editing.Fatbatsat (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

encyclopedia.com is not a good source.... could you review Wikipedia:Reliable sources....we need real sources WP:RS/AC. Its concerning that thus far with all the talks above not one academic or peer-reviewed publication has been presented other then mine.... pls readup on the topic.....no change since the 80s.^[4][5][6] Plus it should say "a person who laces a snowshoe" .....this as of now is all wrong not following one of the real sources by academics presented below. Article should be restored to before the encyclopedia.com addition.Moxy- 10:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Do you have an opinion on this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears from the references given that the snowshoe explanation may not be correct. I always found it a bit suspect due to Inuit not using snowshoes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, I literally just put the old source back in. There are a thousand others, and a simple google search will reveal that, so don't be throwing the book at me please. The articles that you are calling academic are, again, all out of date, except the Patrick 2013 source, which is complete BS on etymology. First, all the sources cited by Patrick are waaaaay out of date-- in addition to the idea that "because it has been taught in Canada for a while" is a justification, do you also expect us to believe that no one has published a paper on this in 30 years? Even you should know that that is a reach. Second, partly by way of justification, Patrick says that "the Inuit did not use snowshoes." Let's just start with the fact that it is clearly a term used to refer to people to the north, not an exact exonym for people in the exact part of Canada where CambridgeBayWeather lives. And then, the idea that Inuit peoples did not use snoeshoes is, of course, ludicrous. The word for snoweshoe, tangluk or tagluk or whatever variation, is common to many Yupik and Inuit peoples. Of course, where there is not much in the way of snow in the farthest north places, people don't typically use snoeshoes. But we're talking about migratory people here, and you bet even your eastern Inuit folks historically had a very good idea of what a snoeshoe was.

CambridgeBayWeather, no, the snoeshoe etymology is as correct a one as is available, and if that level of surety is good enough for the discipline of linguistics, it needs to be good enough for Wikipedia. The only other suppposedly likely etymology traces back to exactly one source, which was long enough ago that he could get away with, according to later sources, stating the idea without proof. There's a colonialist-"science"-origin pervasive urban mythology around "eaters of raw meat" and you can't just skirt around that. I'll see if I can can dig up some more academic or better referenced sources (they're well buried), but the burden of proof is still on people who clearly disagree with the vast majority of linguists.Fatbatsat (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We should simply state what the source say in the lead and explain in the body......"A variety of theories have been postulated for the etymological origin of the word Eskimo"......that its origin is not fully certain. We cant change history because it may be offensive. We need to educate our readers on the dubious origins be they right or wrong and the different translations......Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different etymologies. So what can we do? Trust your opnion or fallow the sources presented...that i note again have not advanced since the 80'. At this point can we get you to propose any changes you wish to make to the article here first for a review by other so we can avoid more editwars over your changes as your attempts to whitewash the dubious etymology including as an IP prior to making an account is not a good thing .....pls review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Wikipedia:Advocacy. .Moxy- 12:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

^{[7][8][2][3][4][5][6][9][10]}

Hi, I've made some changes to the article in attempt to address the above recently discussed concerns while not tearing apart the integrity of the article. Please let me know what you think!!! Fatbatsat (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happy for the first paragraph to be a place holder till the above discussion is concluded, although if others disagree I am on their side as you are being a bit bold. "Nonetheless, the word has no exact synonym, so conceptual replacement remains a conundrum" this is breaking the fourth wall in a way we typically do not do, it reads like original research even if it is not. See MOS:INSTRUCT for the vibe of what I am trying to say. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

These changes are definitely a positive move, in my opinion. I agree with Dushan Jugum that the "no exact synonym" sentence does have a fourth-wall-breaking feel to it, but I'm still turning it over in my head to figure out what the best alternative phrasing might be. For the time being, I've just removed the line break between the first two paragraphs, as I felt that the lead flows better when they're combined. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your continual reverts were the whole reason the RfC had to opened in the first place. The edits do not address the substance of why people prefer "Option B", and therefore should be rejected. The clear consensus is against your opinion. Nobody but you has suggested option "A", as the best option. Option B is not "tearing apart the integrity of the article", the clear consensus is currently for option B, and I see no reason to compromise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, let me suggest to you this thought: the truth is not a compromise. In editing, I was trying to help, because you asked for my opinion. This RfC did *not* have to be opened, you opened it as a proxy for rational debate, solely because you refused to communicate, instead first engaging in an edit war and blaming me for it, then forcing a vote of whoever happened to be wandering by. That's democracy only in a limited sense-- it's called mob rule, friend. Again, I absolutely never said option A was perfect, just that your edits don't represent an improvement, and I've said why, which no one has bothered to refute. More than one person *has* said your edit is not a great idea, and zero people, including yourself, have bothered to offer substantial arguments for it. I think there was some merit in your suggestion though, so at this point I'm genuinely interested to see how this goes. Fatbatsat (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fatbatsat, Wikipedia:Consensus is a core policy of the encyclopedia, read it fully. Describing trying to get the opinion of other uninvolved editors, who have unanimously disagreed with you, as "mob rule" is frankly just absurd. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm somewhat confused as to why these changes were reverted. I can understand that, procedurally, it could be troublesome to change the lead while there's an ongoing RfC - but the changes that Fatbatsat made did move the lead in the direction of the current consensus. The usage of "Eskimo... refers to" in the first sentence helps convey that this article is foremost about the term "Eskimo" (even if it doesn't call it a "term" explicitly), and that was the crux of the difference proposed in Option B. By moving "Many... consider the term unacceptable" to an earlier position, the edit also helps to foreground the consideration of the word's reception, which was another frequently mentioned point in the RfC. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The reverts to the lead were mostly due to Moxy's objections to the etymology section. I felt it was just easier to revert and be done with it. I also felt that the lead changes were jumbled, as they did not clearly define "Yupik" or "Inuit" before invoking the terms, which was confusing to a reader. I think the RfC should be closed before any other major changes are made to the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It says that there are 183,000 Inuit and Yupik people which was changed from 183,000 Eskimo. However, the sources don't add up.

• Inuit population by residence inside or outside Inuit Nunangat, 2016 - 65,025
• Greenland 89.5% of 57,799 is - 51,730
• U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 PHC-T-18. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States: 2000 - ?
• The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010 shows 24,858 Inupiat and 28,927 Yup'ik - 53,785

That's a total of 170,540. Where's the rest of the people? Even if that figure misses the Siberian Yupik it's only another 2,800. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Overall, we estimated that there were about 1.13 million indigenous people in the northern regions of the 8 Member States of the Arctic Council. There were 8,100 Aleuts in Alaska and the Russian North; 32,400 Athabaskans in Alaska and northern Canada; 145,900 Inuit in Alaska, northern Canada and Greenland; 76,300 Sami in northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia; and 866,400 people in northern Russia belonging to other indigenous groups......Moxy- 11:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

But that's even less. That source says 145,900 and adding in the missing Siberian Yupik gives 148,700. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

the report is about people that actually live in the area versus those who self-identify and do not live there....... problem with statistics Canada is that they count for everyone even those not living in the area..... we have 3rd Generation City dwellers still bring to themselves as Inuit which is fine cuz they are but they're not really part of the overall population of the North.Moxy- 01:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see this as being only about the people living in the north. As an example French people is not limited to people who live only in France. I've looked again at the statistics and the sentence. The sentence says "There are more than 183,000 Inuit and Yupik people throughout the Arctic, of which 135,000 or more live in or near the traditional circumpolar regions." The Arctic can be defined in more than one way but I think the most common is the area inside the Arctic Circle. We don't have a good map (File:FMIB 43941 Map showing treeless Regions around the North Pole.jpeg) of the tree line and I don't think many people look at it that way. We don't have an article on circumpolar lands but we do have one on circumpolar peoples. It shows that they live in an area inside and outside the Arctic Circle. So the circumpolar region would be larger than the Arctic but has less people. All three of the sources show people living outside of the Arctic and "traditional circumpolar regions". The Greenland stats include Nuuk (south of the Arctic Circle) and the United States stats are for the entire country excluding Puerto Rico. I think the sentence should read:

There are between 171,000 and 187,000 Inuit and Yupik peoples, the majority of which live in or near their traditional circumpolar regions.^[1][2][3][4]

A section could then be added explaining the Denmark figures.

In looking this all up I found that according to List of communities in Nunavut there are 35,882 people. Of these 13,536 live in the Arctic and 22,346 live south of the Arctic Circle. Also according to some people the Arctic is defined as only the Arctic Ocean and there is no lands in the Arctic! CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Your right Have you seen this? density we could also mention.Moxy- 13:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There needs to be a recognition that Inuit is being used as a synonym of Eskimo today (and yes, including Yupik). Whether or not people agree with it, it is happening, and it needs to be acknowledged.^[1][2]24.244.23.162 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The terms are not exact synonyms, the Yupik are not Inuit but are commonly considered to come under the "Eskimo" umbrella, this distinction is explained pretty clearly in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Fatbatsat (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Really?

According to Smithsonian linguist Ives Goddard, etymologically the word derives from the Innu-aimun (Montagnais) word ayas̆kimew, meaning "a person who laces a snowshoe",^[1] and is related to husky (a breed of dog).

However, the references numbered 1 to 3 do not mention "husky" at all. I borrowed Handbook of North American Indians: Volume 5 Arctic at the Internet Archive and it does mention "husky" on page 7. But it does not say what the sentence above says. It looks as if whalers and HBC workers used Huskemaw and not that it is related to Eskimo but may have derived from that. Perhaps someone else can check it out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this originates from a WP:CUCKOO edit. There are a couple of sources which historically link 'husky' to 'Eskimo', but this is unrelated to Goddard's proposed etymology for the latter. So we have another thing that needs to be disentangled. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The east coast sourced mention this. Like..George Morley Story; W. J. Kirwin; John David Allison Widdowson, eds. (1 January 1990). Dictionary of Newfoundland English. University of Toronto Press. pp. 263–. ISBN 978-0-8020-6819-4. OCLC 1011798511.Moxy- 18:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it actually necessary to mention in the Etymology section that English 'Eskimo' is the etymological source of another English word? Quite interesting trivia, but a bit off-topic in this context. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC

I'm pretty sure it's not a Cukoo edit. The referincing on this article is just crap because people keep editing the article and not caring how they change references, or what references they use, so long as they can get their personal POV across.

The origin is along these lines: https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/The_Evolution_of_a_Word_Husky/ or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/husky#:~:text=shortening or https://www.lexico.com/definition/husky "Mid 19th century (originally denoting a Labrador Inuit): abbreviation of obsolete Ehuskemay or Newfoundland dialect Huskemaw ‘Eskimo’, probably from Montagnais (see Eskimo). The term replaced the 18th-century term Eskimo dog." Also see "Nunavut Generations: Change and Continuity in Canadian Inuit Communities, by Ann McElroy.

Fatbatsat (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Linguistic origin of the term "Eskimo" is "one who nets snowshoes", and the Wikipedia article as written is out of step with reality on this point. Any idiot with a keyboard and an internet connection can figure that out. This article has been subject to repeated sabotage based on outdated and never-well-founded personal viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.252.200.97 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Don't start again with this nonsense. It is disputed what the word means. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not weasel words when many do consider the term to be offensive. Many don't but many do. Both sides are discussed in reliable sources as has been presented. I agree with @CambridgeBayWeather here. This has been discussed multiple times and the consensus is that the article strikes a neutral tone. We may individually think it does / doesn't go far enough or even that it goes too far but one voice does not a consensus make. If you want to add to the article using reliable sources then I say go for it. But removing what is there just doesn't make sense. --ARoseWolf 16:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "neutral tone". You can't have a "neutral tone" between facts, on one hand, and someone blatantly trying to adjust the facts such that they reflect a cultural status quo. And yes, CambridgeBayWeather, I put the blame squarely on you, because I happen to know that, apart from myself and otherwise very much alone among the other people editing here, you actually have some idea of the comedy of errors and cultural quagmire behind this whole issue, and yet instead of taking a principled stand for what you know to be accurate, you roll over to some insanely misbegotten sense of political correctness that aims at taking down established fact. The etymology of the word is not disputed by etymologists. Right now, Wikipedia is literally arguing with science, with every dictionary in existence outside of Canada, and with google, and its making asses of the 5 or 6 people who have been trying to BS on this article's talk page for the last year. It's frankly hillarious. But hillarity aside, the article needs to be re-revised to reflect reality. So, sorry, it is not nonsense.Fatbatsat (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

:[https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eskimo pls read the sources].^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} :::::::::::We should simply state what the source say in the lead and explain in the body......"A variety of theories have been postulated for the etymological origin of the word Eskimo"......that its origin is not fully certain. We cant change history because it may be offensive. We need to educate our readers on the dubious origins be they right or wrong and the different translations......Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different etymologies. So what can we do? Trust your opnion or fallow the sources presented...that i note again have not advanced since the 80'. At this point can we get you to propose any changes you wish to make to the article here first for a review by other so we can avoid more editwars over your changes as your attempts to whitewash the dubious etymology including as an IP prior to making an accoun is not a good thing .....pls review WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and Wikipedia:Advocacy. .Moxy- 14:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow that is the most poorly written, intellectually dilapidated joke of a sorry excuse to a reply to a Wikipeida talk post that I have ever seen, and I've seen some doozies. Your source is garbage. Actually, Moxy, let me go back in time a bit a say that basically every source you have cited has been garbage. What part of "that is not etymology" do you fail to understand? Maybe it's the definition of the word "that"? Or is "is" the part you are having problems with. May I dare ask, have you ever met an etymologist? Because I essentially grew up with two of them. And, turns out, they're not usually idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

II you have better sources then McGill-Queen's Press - Oxford University Press - McGill-Queen's Press pls bring them forward.Moxy- 15:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe actual peer-reviewed linguistics research? How about Ives Goddard's paper? Maybe the several concurring papers from the 90s. But no, you want me to go with the only other possible etymology, published 6 years before Goddard, and not confirmed by a single peer-reviewed work in 44 years. Sure, completely logical. Definitely a worthy debate.Fatbatsat (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Thus far your encyclopedia.com also has different etymologies. " <--- That is a straight-up lie and I think you know it. Certainly, anyone who can read and click a weblink knows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbatsat (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec x3) Noit sure what your saying Goddard is from 1984...not one source above is from before that? can you see this?Moxy- 15:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Goddard is 1984, and Jose Mailhot is 1978. And Mailhot might, in theory, have had some scientific standing, but no one ever published a corroborating paper, so consensus is with Goddard. It's not a complicated issue, if you understand science, peer review, or scientific consensus, which you *very clearly* do not.103.252.200.145 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok so your just interested in one persons view over all others....have you seen this tlaking about his POV??? its by John SteckleyMoxy- 15:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the dubious claim should be left in the article. I may not agree with @Fatbatsat's approach to the matter but there is supporting evidence to what they say based on what I see. Granted, we aren't supposed to use other tertiary sources for notability, however, I believe the sheer number of sources which demonstrate the claim as being discredited or dubious warrants the inclusion of the template. I think very clearly there are those, especially among the Inuit communities of Canada and Greenland, that believe the word is offensive and that should not be removed from the article, not because they feel that way but because it is in reliable published sources. However, if the etymological claim has been refuted and discredited in multiple reliable sources and those sources can be provided then that too should be included. We can have an article with all of the viewpoints found in reliable sources which makes the article stronger in the sense of accuracy. If @Fatbatsat feels the sources others present are, in fact, "garbage" and they can make a compelling argument for their POV then I would encourage them to open a discussion at WP:RSN. --ARoseWolf 16:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We could split them out.....puzzled by "John Steckley's anti-historical linguistic POV" statement. ..find it very odd Canadian sources are being dismissed because of nationality. We have any sources for this POV. Moxy- 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about "Canadian sources are being dismissed because of nationality". Is this directed at me? If it is, this needs to be rectified. It's not about "nationality", but about Steckley saying things like: 'This expert assumption that "I know more than you do about your own traditions" is one that anthropologists of all types, including linguistic anthropologists, have to be careful before making.' I don't dismiss the source as being from a Canadian, but as one that tries to evaluate historical linguistics through the emic-based paradigm of descriptive linguistics. We should avoid sources by apple experts trying to assess oranges. –Austronesier (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As you can see bellow ...hate on for Canada. As for John Steckley not sure why this Academic is being dismissed. Moxy- 12:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"But the "correct" etymology of the term 'Eskimo' is irrelevant for the question of how the term is perceived by present-day Inuit and Yupik."

That's incorrect, of course. Just because people might ignore it or tangentialize it in the short term does not mean that etymology is not key to interpretation/understanding/perception over the medium to long term. And that's not the point-- removing relevant scientific facts from a Wikipedia article is censorship, so call it like it is. And, yes, while there are a plethora of predominately Canadian populist sources (and, yes, they are almost all not just Canadian, but eastern Canadian specifically), clearly and deliberately refusing to revise what is a contra-scientific narrative, that doesn't mean the rest of the world, or the rest of the English Wikipedia, needs to be taking whatever they say as the gospel truth. Even if... [and this is a very close paraphrase, if not a direct quote, because someone chose to prematurely archive the Talk page-- again!-- which is also a form of censorship]... even if Moxy "learned about it in school"! Seriously, come on people, do better. Oh, let's see, sources... "The Canadian Encyclopedia", I mean, what an utter joke. Sure, there's an American Enclyopedia, but only because American English is a recognized dialectic set. Even the Chinese politburo has not put out a text they were so bold as to call "The Chinese Encyclopedia".

Oh, and Austronesier, this Talk sub-topic wasn't started to discuss the "Eaters of Raw Flesh" myth, and that's because even the editors here, who mostly don't seem to care what the facts are, are by and large completely unable to deny that it is a myth based on a thoroughly discredited etymology. They're still willing to censor and weasel-word to death based on a lie, but that's not the point. And what you're saying in a nice way is, well, take that a step further, basically: that Wikipedia should go right ahead and *perpetuate* what we all know to be a lie. And that, for any reason, I disagree.Fatbatsat (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"So to say that Inuit and Yupik shouldn't be offended by the term because the etymology has been "debunked" (it hasn't!)"

Yes, yes it has. You are not the one who gets to decide that. And scientific consensus has long ago spoken on this issue. If you refuse to read the peer reviewed-research in linguistics, and you also refuse to believe internationally accepted layman's sources who themselves have evaluated that research (though I admit that that's tricky as they tend to switch every 2 years or so due to balancing popular pressure against science, not unlike Wikipedia itself), there's really not much that can be done for you besides eject you from the forum. Which, at this point is what I am advocating for: for all editors who will not accept the correct etymology of the word to be banned from editing this article. Try that on for censorship, you liars.Fatbatsat (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU ...WP:FINDSOURCESFORME. Moxy- 12:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Look, you are basically right about my attitude, and I'm sorry I got frustrated with you guys. Difficulties in my personal life. But also, editing this article is uniquely frustrating. I know you have the article's best interest at heart, as I do. The fact is that you are simply mistaken, and the parts of the issue which we are discussing are indeed vague, difficult to be definitive about, confusing, whatever adjective you like. But still, there is a facts-based perspective here, and a humanistic one. I think you're a little off on the facts, and I don't think the humanistic perspective conflicts with the facts in this case, rather to the contrary.

Still, are we really going to devolve this to a discussion about the Edmonton Eskimos-->Elks? Total red herring, that. Are the (solid, I agree, in this case-- though I don't like to generalize by geography, Edmonton is a ways off from the country of the Innuvialuit, and naming your sports team by ethnicity is a poor choice at the best of times) decisions of sports teams and name-brands now what we should hinge our arguments on? Perhaps I should counter that there is a guy of Yupik (and I think also Inupiaq?) origin on the "American Ninja" television show who very definitively markets himself as "The Eskimo Ninja". No, honestly, how mundain and mob-like can we get in our arguments. Facts are certainly not the only thing that is relevant, as they are by themselves, by definition, trivial. There is good reason, however, especially on matters where emotions run high, to apply logic to the judicious *use* of facts in writing a good encylopedia article.

"Inuit don't use snowshoes" is not correct. I do know you have a source which claims that; I read it already, multiple times. I have also explained why it is not correct, probably more than once? And that source, and that incorrect arugment, is your best argument, you are right. But since that premise is wrong, the argument is wrong. Kind of underscores how you guys are over-acedmizing (academic-ize, if you must) the article, not under-academizing it in the service of justice as you are tacitly claiming. And the difficulty stems to the definition of Inuit, which relates, somehow, to the definition of Eskimo. And not to put too fine a point on it, in a more modern context, the way you are putting it right here is more than a little bit culturally insensitive to boot-- I know where you are coming from, but please bear in mind that regardless of how you are using the term, the "Inuit" are a real people, a real group of peoples, or a real group of group of peoples, not a hypothetical one. *That* word even means "the real people". I'm not going to go into another public history/culture lessson on snoeshoes and geographical distributions of peiple who have been called Eskimo or Inuit, as I know you are aware of many of the issues surrounding this question.

But let's see if we can break this down. The lead section currently says that the etymology is "disputed". That is not true, and I'm unable to find a source to corroborate. That word was either put in there by Moxy (let us say that it was in haste) or by someone who *really* did not know what they were talking about. Your actual vallid case, and Moxy's, is that the etymology is "unclear", which is also untrue, but it is at least a referenced statement. So let us instead restrict ourselves to the discussion of the perputed lack of clarity.

[[[[[ Note: for the sake of public dialogue on this Talk page, I will point out, again, that the etymology and meaning of the word "Eskimo" is "one who nets snowshoes, that that etymology has reached scientific consensus in the related scientific literature which specializes on such questions, and there is no peer reviewed "dispute" whatsoever, nor has any been reported on. This is public knowledge within the specialist linguisitic community. Please see https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php

Within the context of Wikipedia-public dialogue, it is ideed worth noting CambridgeBayWeather's (book) source above. This book claims that Inuit do not use snowshoes but (1) that is not specialist research, so not relevant to my statement above and (2) the claim is based on a premise which is either false or geographically biased to too small an area for the subject being discussed ]]]]].

The question, perhaps, which we should be asking ourselves, is "unclear to who"? Because, since I give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not engaging in deliberate censorship, what you are very clearly doing is assigning undue weight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_and_undue_weight When scientfic specialist research is all one way, and public dialogue is frankly all over the map, and scientific generalist sources are quite iffy, and if I may say so rather distracted, it isn't such a difficult call to make in favor of the specialist research consensus, which says that "one who nets snowshoes" is the correct etymological origin. There's no real point arguing this further. Either you accept the vallidity of scientific consensus or you do not, either you value truth, or you inadvertently act the censor; either you write into the article what is accurate, or you determine what should be in it by tyranny of the majority, i.e. mob rule. That is why the undue weight directive exists.

As for the etymology section itself, it is alright except in that it repeats the same error-- assigning undue weight. It isn't encyclopedic that "a variety of theories have been proposed". People have literally put forth theories such as "birds are not real". Yet, I could not find the claim that birds are not real *anywhere* in the Wikipedia article on "Bird". Fatbatsat (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point or do you really not get it. People are offended by being called Eskimo. It does not matter the origin of the word, or the original intention, some people are offended by it (there are references in the article and below). You are saying that science says but forgetting that we are talking about humans who have feelings. And yes we should say what scientific consensus says but we also need to point out the widespread belief of others. The belief of the "raw meat" is not a minor thing.

As to Inuit not wearing snowshoes I am not trying to put that into the article. Just pointing out why Inuit find the "snowshoe netter" odd. It is possible that some Inuit in the south that are/were around the treeline wore snowshoes but not to a large extent. When a words origin stems from a small group of people then the majority are going to find it confusing. By the way where are your references that Inuit wear snowshoes? I've never met a single Inuk who knew of someone wearing snowshoes. Our snow packs so hard they aren't necessary.

I notice that you claim I'm censoring the article. How have I done that? What is it that you want to include that I won't let in? You, on the other hand, seem to want to erase the entire idea that people are upset by being called an Eskimo and remove any mention of the "raw meat" belief. If that is not your intention you need to state that clearly on this talk page.

The fact that I'm an admin is a red herring on your part. I haven't used to tools to shape the article at all as can be seen here. Neither have I used being an admin in any discussion. The fact that I am one never came up here until you mentioned it and looks to me like an effort to poison the well.

"please bear in mind that regardless of how you are using the term, the "Inuit" are a real people, a real group of peoples, or a real group of group of peoples, not a hypothetical one. *That* word even means "the real people"." thanks for the explanation. After 47 years in the Arctic I hadn't realised that all my Inuit family and friends were actual people until you pointed it out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are censoring the article. I am fairly certain that your post above strongly indicates that you are *deliberately* censoring the article to anyone who is actually paying attention to this debate. The benefit of the doubt runs out at some point, man, and after several years of hard or "soft" abuse of your position as editor to support a POV, you are very close to that point. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm poisoning the well. I can see how it might look that way, even though it isn't the case.

>>>"If that is not your intention, you need to state that clearly on this talk page."

No, I really don't need to state that, I think it's ridiculously obvious at this juncture that you are a big fan of straw man arguments, and not of logic. But that doesn't allow you to dictate what I can say or not say. Practically all your other points above are also straw-man arguments. You are arguing against points I have not expressed and do not hold, in order to censor me, and dilute my pointing out of obvious, well-accepted facts.

>>>"Neither have I used being an admin in any discussion."

Very funny, I've seen you use block-threats, blocks and secondhand blocks via report repeatedly over several years, including, it would surprise me not at all, quite recently. How clever of you not to bring that up in discussion.

>>>"It is possible that some Inuit in the south that are/were around the treeline wore snowshoes but not to a large extent."

Well, glad to hear that you're an expert on this now. It's the insinuation that this point you are making is even faintly relevant to the topic at hand which rankles me, and, yes, makes me concerned that you are trying to talk this to death, which is a form of censorship (as is hurling "tattletale" blocks, facilitating and "weighing in" on RFPs with a totally inadequate number of attendees, citing unreliable literature as equivalent to peer-reviewed papers, and let's not forget the repeated and premature archiving of relevant info on the Talk page, which I'll hazard a guess you could have done something about pretty easily, even if you aren't directly responsible). When you are more than informed enough on the topic to know the difference, you cannot use ignorance as an excuse-- that is what you have done, and that is why I am singling you out.

>>>"After 47 years in the Arctic I hadn't realised that all my Inuit family and friends were actual people until you pointed it out."

No, you just apparently think they are the only "Inuit", etc. people who matter, and it's a perfectly reasonable decision to subject, quite literally, the whole world to your very limited NNPOV. Which is part of why we don't love original research on Wikipedia. Most of us also *really* do not like censorship.

Fatbatsat (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's time for you to either stop with the false accusations or take your complaints to the appropriate notice board. Given that you have accused me, without proof, of censorship and using my being an admin, I would suggest that you go to WP:ANI. I see that now you are adding even more false accusations without any links to back them up. I didn't say I was an expert, excellent word twisting, nor did I archive this page or say that my family were the only Inuit who mattered.

"No, I really don't need to state that" and "Most of us also *really* do not like censorship." So why are you trying to remove the "raw meat eater" belief, even thought it's incorrect but widely held, and the idea that some Inuit are offended by being called Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

But they're not false! It's funny how you think you can keep calling them false, and that will somehow make them go away. It's quite hard to make the truth go away. I'm not actually trying to remove references to the raw meat eater shebang. But see, you just admitted that it is incorrect. And if and when I take this further up the chain, given the current state of the article, and your arguments for that state, your admission will be part of my evidence. But I'm done talking with you about this, goodbye.Fatbatsat (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• moved to Talk:Eskimo-Aleut languages

I think it's the least this article can do. The page for the N-word comes right out and says that it's an ethnic slur. I should not have had to scroll so far to read "Regardless, the term still carries a derogatory connotation for many Inuit and Yupik." 142.116.232.58 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a source calling it controversial? I think that would be safest. If not, we might need another RfC. We might need another RfC anyway to change the scope of the entire article, as was briefly suggested in the previous RfC. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• The issue is that I think you would be hard pressed to find a single person that identifies or agrees with the usage of the former word nor will you find associations or organizations related to any race of people which uses that word in a positive way. In the case of "Eskimo", there are Inupiat and Yupik tribal organizations and associations which use the word and identify with it. They literally call themselves Eskimo communities and that's how they present themselves to the outside world. I know our personal interactions are not reliable sources but can provide context. I have friends with whom I communicate regularly that are Inupiat and Yupik that both use and call themselves Eskimo's and are not offended when it is used to refer to them in the slightest. it is true that they do prefer being referred to by their specific tribal community name in most cases but we really don't sit around discussing the word or its usage. They really don't care. Maybe its just those in my circle but I'm sure there are others that feel the same way. That's why we rely on sources. If reliable sources show that a large percentage, perhaps even a majority, see it as offensive or are indifferent to it, then it should be given weight but should not drown out or cancel other views also found in sources. I am sure a large percentage, if not a majority, of Indigenous peoples in the United States find the word "Indian" offensive or are indifferent to it, but it is literally used in official tribal names and many of them, self included, prefer to be called American Indian rather than Native American. So the two or three terms are not 100% comparable in that sense. I'm not sure taking such a hard stance is the best option. We can follow reliable sources and include all points of view in a neutral article without picking a side. --ARoseWolf 13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @ARoseWolf: This is a good argument against expressly calling the word a slur, but "controversial" probably matches with what you are saying. I'd still feel more comfortable about the word if we could find a source that explicitly says "controversial" or similar. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Anatole Lyovin; Brett Kessler; William Ronald Leben (2017). An Introduction to the Languages of the World. Oxford University Press. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-0-19-514988-3. OCLC 1090190506......Moxy- 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fieari, I am not at all against calling it controversial. It is, in fact, very controversial, from the origins of the term to the usage through recorded history all the way to its usage today. Many terms are controversial and can be used as a slur depending on how its used but may not necessarily be slur words. Perceived and intended uses are sometimes very much muddied as well. Take for example, if I met you on the street and said, "It's very hard to look at you." You might perceive my comment negatively and I would understand why. However, if I followed that up with "Let me find my glasses so I can see you better.", that would add context and my initial statement doesn't sound so negative. Perception can have a lasting affect and that's why we need and have a policies on assuming good faith and against personal attacks and why civility is a pillar of the community. It seems to be very hard for many to follow it 100% of the time and I think most of us have probably failed to live up to it here before. I may not think the term is a slur but others might and its only right for me to respect their perspective and the best thing for us to do is find neutral words like what you proposed in "controversial" to describe it. I hope that clears up my position better. --ARoseWolf 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably the article on redskin is a better comparison to "Eskimo" than the article on nigger. Still not quite the same thing though, even though some native Americans identify as "redskin" and use the term to refer to one another.

Rather than slap a content-free label "controversial" into the lead, wouldn't it be best for the lead to simply describe the different meanings and interpretations? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead not the place to got tit for tat...... unless the article is transformed into a term article.Moxy- 00:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I think consensus might be building for that very thing to happen. The previous RfC certainly had some participants leaning that way. Shall we just start a new RfC on it? Fieari (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Etymology sections in the lead always get removed overtime because they cause nothing but heartache as has been seen right here in thia article.... should have rfc about whether or not this article should be turned into a term article about the word over an odd summary article.Moxy- 02:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had to chip in that some people use the "n" word to refer to each other too, and for nearly every other ethnic slur too. Jimydog000 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

When did my Eskimo friends begin thinking that word that they used to describe their own people for centuries was derogatory? Answer: Never. To use incorrect absolutist assertions and terminology in the first few paragraphs of the article demonstrates a one-sided presentation. E.g, When you have such precise numbers for the population of the Inuit people, the use of the term "Many" to describe the number or percentage of Inuit who are actually offended by the term "Eskimo" is far too vague, and decidedly non-academic. Exactly how many? The citations do not support the assertion. The article is also incorrect in applying the term exonym, when it is and was indeed an endonym until an NGO claiming to represent Northern aboriginals, to help justify its existence, officially adopted the essentially synonymous geographical and genealogical identifier "Inuit". Eskimo is the European pronunciation of a word that the Inuit were using before European discovery, and is still what entire populations of Inuit continue to call themselves. To ignore this truth slants the article. To suggest the word is derogatory is the equivalent of calling those populations, "Uncle Toms." Talk about derogatory! No, Eskimo is not a derivative of a Cree word for "raw meat eater", but a much more precise word from the Inuit language meaning "snowshoe wearer". NO one I know, as well as the governments of several democratic nations, the CBC and NFB have ever used the term Eskimo with anything other than utmost respect. People who are able to live at the limits of human survivability command respect. They are even more quintessentially Canadian than the beaver. Excuse me, I meant "large rodent dam builder." The beavers' NGO is clearly underachieving. 2001:569:FD3C:5300:8576:FA21:73B9:1C93 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of us are tired of constant RfCs on every fucking little "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of thing. The clearest evidence that you're putting the cart before the horse here is the fact that we have {{Controversial}} and yet it's not even applied to this talk page. I've also said rather a lot in recent times regarding the abuse of Jimbo's quote about "the sum of all human knowledge". The sum of all human knowledge doesn't mean attaching a "flavor of the day" POV to every topic regardless of context. The whole of the topic needs to be considered, not just what the 21st century thinks. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Radio here. Things are getting frustrating. I have been working on this article patiently and carefully and gently for several years, live in an extremely affected area, am an indigenous person with and indigenous Alaskan legal name, and I have studied and reached out to a plethora of original sources on this exact issue. And yet, due to the beautiful mob-rule-misnamed-democracy that goes into the writing of (apparently) overly obscure Wikipedia articles, my edits have to somehow compete with completely uninformed, dare-I-say-it...idiots... 4/5 of whom just happen to be from Canada, who want to boost their egos at the expense of repeatedly detracting from the dispenation and propagation of known and valuable facts. There has simply got to be a better way to deal with this article that does not waste so much of my personal time but also reflects the truth. As Wikipedia admin's have had to be repeatedly involved with this issue, and apart from the obviously biased Admin perpetually lurking here, CambridgeBayWeather, they have basically all agreed that these efforts are clear censorship, full stop; and yet, nothing changes. I am thinking of reaching out to management to ask them to step in and deal with the situation, rectify the article to reflect reality and move it to full-protected status. The origin of the word is not disputed, and the false etymology which lead to the idea of it being a racist term is linked to a single source, who did so under the auspices of what is pretty clearly a "colonial" version of science (show up, make something up, go home). So the article should probably in some way reflect that fact as well. Instead, we are forever arguing back and forth over whether it is offensive to people or not, and how important that putative offensiveness is. I mean, what a joke. What an absolute offence to truth and travesty of justice. Yeah. So anybody who agrees with me should probably put their name down here and we'll co-sign a letter or something. Fatbatsat (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Any sources we can debate??Moxy- 15:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some Arctic Natives (like Siberian Natives) post on their media platform talking about this. They said that the word "Eskimo" is actually racist slur against the Arctic Natives because it's offensive and perpetutes negative stereotypes. If anyone has the same thought, or have a information source about this, please put it on the Wikipedia! 125.162.215.80 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not, actually a slur, and it never has been. That is a popular misconception, which is largely based on a version of the word's etymology which is both false/fabricated and colonialist. But a lot of people have very negative opinions about it-- it's not a very "safe" exonym these days. And it would be really good to have Siberian viewpoints better represented in this article. Sources we've found have been so far pretty limited. Thanks for bringing this up! Fatbatsat (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Stephen R. Bown (17 October 2015). White Eskimo: Knud Rasmussen's Fearless Journey into the Heart of the Arctic. Douglas and McIntyre (2013) Limited. ISBN 978-1-77162-104-5. OCLC 1015886355.Moxy- 12:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The people, Inuit and others, referred to by the term Eskimo feel that it is a slur or offensive. It is a name imposed by outsiders, either First Nations and Europeans. The actual meaning of the word does not matter in its perceived offensiveness. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"The people, Inuit and others, referred to by the term Eskimo feel that it is a slur or offensive. " --> that general, blanket claim is obviously false. The fact that it has been put down here, without reference (hint: it can't be accurately referenced), reveals only the author's own bias (or lack of education) on that matter, and reveals it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Let me also add that if you are speaking to someone who you know is of Eskimo origin, unless you are quite well locally educated, you might find it difficult not to use an exonym. "Inuit" is certainly an exonym applied to the vast majority even of Inuit peoples. But, if you're not sure of a specific tribal or tribal group name to use, and you are referring to such a person *to that person*, then the polite general term is:

...in Alaska, "Alaska Native", but remember it applies to more than just Eskimo peoples there;

... in Canadsa, "Inuit"-- in some sense technically accurate applied to the far-northern-coastal Alaskans as well, but not well-accepted by the "Inupiaq" people there;·

... Siberia... Wikipedia believes that the correct&polite term in Siberia is "Yuit", but if you or people you're in communication over there can supply non-original research to the contrary, please fix Wikipedia-- we do know that they are closely related to the Alaskan Yupik (non-Inuit) peoples;

...Greenland, eek...the polite term in Greenland... well, go there and find out... Inuit is too Canadian (indeed, the origin of the word is Canada) and is sometimes viewed as offensive, "Kaalaliit" [also likely an exonym drawing from the Norse "Skraeling"] is safer but those who are not technically Kaalaliit might take umbrage. So the best word is probably the Danish exonym-- Grønlændere-- I am guessing something about the low population density and egalitarian rules there makes people not want to delve too deep into genetics in a public setting, so long as one's family has been on the island for a few generations. Fatbatsat (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that the article contains references to various people who find it offensive I really didn't think I had to repeat them here. However, see Eskimo, Inuit, and Inupiaq: Do these terms mean the same thing?, Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: What Does "Eskimo" Mean In Cree?, Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?, Ostgroenland-Hilfe Project, Eskimo, Expert says ‘meat-eater’ name Eskimo an offensive term placed on Inuit, Why You Probably Shouldn't Say 'Eskimo', Inuit, Eskimo, Eskimo, Eskimo Pie owner to change ice cream's name, acknowledging derogatory term and that's not all of them. I agree that several reference the outdated "raw meat" explanation. And by the way where are the references for your claims? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Burden of proof... not on me here (obviously). Fatbatsat (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

So others have to provide sources but you don't? Can you explain why you are excused from providing references? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't even understand the concept of burden of proof, what more can I possibly explain? A bare minimum of logic is required for a legitimate debate, and you either do not possess that, or are simply doubling down on an argument which you entered into with no hope of winning. I neither know, nor care.Fatbatsat (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• The word is most definitely a slur, and has been all but forbidden for 20 years in North American countries with a significant Inuit population. The article must be renamed and edited. Those who continue to knowingly use the E word for an ethnic group should be banned from editing in this topic area. Good grief, even the Alaska Natives article, only has one reference to the word, and it isn't present in any prose. Nfitz (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The word is obviously widely considered offensive, but implicitly comparing it to nigger (by using the euphemism "e-word") is absurd. The offence from the term is not universally understood in the way that term is. Much change has been made to the article to try to shift the topic to the word itself (which is definitely notable), so I don't see why the article should be renamed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Absurd? Please don't violate WP:CIVIL. And good grief - unnecessarily spelling out the n-word; people lose their jobs for stuff like that these days. After your first two comments, I'm not sure why I'd take your third one too seriously. There's no reason I see it can't be a redirect, or simply a brief article