Talk:Inuit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Greenlanders in the EU

Does anyone know for sure that Greenlanders are citizens of the EU (as it says in the second paragraph)? Greenland is not a part of the EU, and has not been since it left in 1985. I guess the question comes down to what it actually means to be a citizen of the EU. I guess the obvious requirement is in the sense of the Masstricht Treaty 1992 - but whether this holds for Greenlanders I do not know - maybe it does! Greenland_and_the_European_Union --Eujin16 09:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

How far off till this article is ready to become featured?

I spend my life on wikipedia but have never edited anything therefore im a n00b so dont scream abuse if you please. Just that the language tone, style and thouroughness of this article was impressive to say the least, not to mention the productive tone of discussion. I learned more than i thought i could. How much further does it need to go? Andrew Seymour 05:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Inuit and peace

The Inuit are sometimes cited as an example of a peaceful society, as in this example: Inuit. This article includes the following about conflict: "Nearly all Inuit cultures have oral traditions of raids by Indians and fellow Inuit, and of taking vengeance on them in return. Although these tales are generally regarded not as accurate historical accounts but as self-serving myths — violence against outsiders as justified revenge — it does make clear that there was a history of hostile contact between Inuit and other cultures. In Alaska, the Inuit became accomplished raiders through constant feuding. Given the narrow margins of survival, the advantages of supplementing one's hunt by stealing from one's neighbours seem obvious. Even within an Inuit band, breaching traditional justice and wronging another Inuit was routinely punished by murderous vengeance, as the story of Atanarjuat shows." The citation of Atanarjuat is to a movie based on an oral tradition (which could be a cautionary tale, rather than evidence of "constant feuding" and "routine" "murderous vengeance.") Is the current discussion a violation of NPOV? In any case, the discussion of conflict in Inuit society could use some better sourcing.

Your peacers cite exactly one source: Jean L. Briggs, and I don't think if they've read her very closely. Try Rachel Attituq Qitsualik for an alternative perspective on the same anthopoligical data. --Diderot 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we going to act?

I agree with Diderot and 142.103.243.155. Greenlanders and Eastern Canadian Eskimos can be referred to as Inuit without any second thoughts. Western Canadian Eskimos can generally be referred to the same way, but it's not entirely true. When one gets into Yupik and Iñupiaq territory, however, the term is no longer applicable under any standard.

Having Eskimo redirect to Inuit is a fallacy, as is the usage of Inuit-Aleut languages instead of Eskimo-Aleut languages. We should reorganize this article and move some information so that Eskimo refers to all the circumpolar peoples that traditionally speak Eskimo-Aleut languages, while Inuit refers only to those Eskimos whose traditional homeland lies in Eastern Canada and Greenland. A thorough explanation of the controversy surrounding the issue, as well as the continued academic use of Eskimo as a more general term and Inuit as a specific term, should be on *both* pages.

Political correctness is good, but there is such a thing as being too politically correct: with the best intentions, people found most occurances of "eskimo" in Wikipedia articles and replaced them with "Inuit". No doubt an Eastern Canadian Eskimo would probably have found their usage offensive, but the usage of the term "Inuit" for both possible meanings is ambiguous and thus should not be common practice; in addition many non-Inuit Eskimos are offended by the usage of the term "Inuit" to describe them, as they are most certainly *not* Inuit.

In addition, Inuktitut is not the language of the Eskimos, it is the language of the Inuit. Each group of Eskimos has their own language (Yupik, Inupiaq, Aleut, Siberian Yupik, Western Canadian Inuktitut [aka Inuvialuktun], Yuit, Eastern Canadian Inuktitut, sometimes Greenlandic Inuit), each distinct from the others.

The time has come to reach a mutual decision on this point rather than continued procrastination! -- Ifoolyou 00:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much to the contributors who refactored this article properly, and who resolved my ignorance as expressed in the old comments below. - Montréalais 06:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment

The convention is generally to exclude the Aleuts and Yupik from the label "Inuit." The word means "people" or "human" in Inuktitut, and the Aleuts and Yupiks don't speak Inuktitut anymore than Spanyards speak Romanian. Inuit does cover the people who live north of the tree line from the east coast of Greenland to where the Yupik communities start in Alaska. "Eskimo" is a discouraged word - although not for very good reasons IMHO - and sometimes does include Aleuts and Yupiks.

-- Diderot

"Inuit" vs. "Eskimo"

The Eskimos of Alaska are also called "Inuit," or so I thought, and I thought the natives of Greenland are too. I don't know how these people are related to the natives of northern Siberia. --LMS, who is from Alaska but who is not Inuit

As far as I can gather, they are called Inuit, and belong to the subgroup Yupik. Inuit is the broadest term. - montréalais

Inuit is not the broadest term. It is the term which refers to one particular people, and most of the Yupik strongly object to being called Inuit, though they don't mind Eskimo. Inuit explicitly does not include the Yupik-- it's like using Chinese to describe all East Asians because the collective term "Oriental" is found offensive by some. Linguists continue to use Eskimo to cover both groups, cf. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html . Eskimo is the only broadest term to describe both. However, since the Inuit themselves object to the term, it's problematic. -- User:142.103.243.155

I have moved the material from Eskimo here and redirected it. I also added some material that was in the Esperanto ("Inuko") article. - montréalais

---

can i please get some answers for the inuits

"Native Peoples", "First Peoples", or "Aboriginal Peoples"

I have seen "Native" used most often in the phrase "Native-newcomer relation" in Canadian history books (where "newcomer" refers to Europeans). And I've seen some Inuit-F.N.-Métis joined publications where they self-refer as "Aboriginal". But I have never heard of "First Peoples" (only "First Nations"), but apparently there are over 2,000 Googles] for it. Many are government webpages, so it must be solidly used. --Menchi 03:54, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Geronticide?

The Inuit practice geronticide, according to many cultural anthropology textbooks. I would love to see this incorporated in the article, because it is a fascinating and perverse idea to many in contemporary industrialized societies. The handling of this, specifically the view that it is normal or expected, reveals a lot about the harshness of their environment.

Google reveals much information on this topic, but not being well-versed in anthropology, I'd be afraid to add it.

The Inuit practiced geronticide. The past tense is important here. The ease and speed with which they abandonned it attests to how much it was a matter of necessity when they did practice it, not deeply ingrained cultural values. It was also not a universal practice - there were groups that found the notion profoundly immoral well before the missionaries showed up. Necessity was a key factor wherever it took place. Even among the Inuit who did use this practice, killing an elderly family member without the justification of severe necessity - not merely the existence of a burden - constituted murder. This point needs to be emphasized.

They cared about their old people too, but they didn't always have the means to support community members who would never be able to contribute to the real economy. The practice ended more or less with the arrival of the missionaries and, not too much later, the government. Even before that, it was something practiced largely under conditions of severe resource shortages - usually bad hunting years - and more often than not with the consent of the elderly victims. Those who knew they were a severe burden on their families often chose suicide in some form rather than remaining a burden. Infanticide was also practiced under severe conditions, as it has been in every human society. Infanticide was also more commonplace than geronticide - which has also generally been true of all human societes.

In general, the Inuit had respected elders as de facto commmunity leaders. Theirs was not a Logan's Run sort of society.

I have no objection to saying something like this in the article, but don't do the "they abandonned their elderly on ice floes" thing. That's a myth. The practice was a lot less cruel than that as I understand it. Most of the time, it was a form of assisted suicide rather than an imposed death sentence. Abandonment was far more often used for infanticide than geronticide. And, geronticide was far from expected. People did not go through their lives knowing that they would end up abandoned on the ice.

--Diderot 11:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

___________

The above post is true, it was the Elder's choice to leave the camp, no one made the person and it was a difficult thing for the entire camp. The Elder would leave the camp to fend on their own and would only do this if they had to; during a time of hardship and hunger. The Elder knew he/she had lived a long life and believed it was his/her duty to let younger people survive. (an Inuk)

Delete paragraph on race?

I wonder if others share my opinion that the paragraph that talks about race should be deleted. Race is a concept that has been discredited by scientists. Use of racial classifications perpetuate racism and usually serve no beneficial purpose. Thus, I would delete the paragraph. Thoughts?

--Vitamin D 00:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This statement is a complete lie. You probably never been to college if you demonstrate such ignorance and illiteracy on natural sciences. If you think biology and anthropology is "racism", then you're an imbecil the size of the catholic church inquisitions who despised science because it affected their beliefs. Take your socialism\communism utopias - and lies - somehwere else, preferably outside the encyclopaedic environment - Your scientific ignorance is mindboggling. Race - and anthropology - is MOST definitely THE proper science to qualify humans in race and genetic wealth, the same way several biologic sciences classify animals by genetic wealth. Ignorance of genetic wealth, races, species and sub-species IS ignorance, illiteracy - period.

I agree. It was with some hesitation that I left it in the last time I added a lot of text. It was originally much more racialist in content, so I added the bit about racial catergorisation being a contested kind of category. I have no objection to pulling it out. BUT... I think it may be appropriate to say in some way that Inuit are not like other Native Americans in a way that is different than the way that Indians are not all like each other. In the past, racial categorisation was the terminology in which this was stated. We might simply report that they object to being classified as First Nations. --Diderot 18:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the concept of race has been discredited. In it's simplest form, race is basically synonymous with the biological concept of subspecies and refers to a population of individuals that generally share more of their genes with each other than with individuals from other populations of the same species. This results in some average phenotypic differences between populations. If distinguishing Siberian tigers from Bengal tigers is valid, than distinguishing human populations with distinct phenotypic differences is valid in the same way. The existence of racism does not depend on whether anthropologists acknowledge the term or not, so denying the concept serves no purpose and simply sacrifices scientific integrity. Having said that, I would argue that broad and antiquated categorisations of race such as mongoloid, caucasian, etc. are misleading, simplistic and unnecessarily restrictive. I would also point out that race/subspecies, like species itself, is not an immutable unit, making associations between culture (also not immutable) and race problematic.137.222.60.87 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there's an importance to study the diversity of genetic variation in the human species, by that, categoraisation based on obvious phenotype is most likely unavoidable. However, the original poster made a simple and polite query based on his understanding, which may be wrong, like many of our beliefs. I found it totally unnecessary to be so ballistic on a follow wikipedian, in fact, your inflated ego and unsigned comments may be more un"encyclopaedic" (or counter the spirit of wikipedia) than the original poster. Alas, I know I'm replying to an old thread, but I cannot stand intolerance and abuse unmatched --Zephirum 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Subgroups

I have been led to understand that there were numerous groups that were/are Inuit, but with variations of culture and language, e.g. the Ihalmiut, N of Nueltin L., the Kinetuamiut along the Innuit Ku, the Dhaeomiut along the Coastal Barrens, and the Kiktoriaktormiut N of Dubawnt L? Can this be confirmed or expanded on in a subhead?137.150.21.134 17:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no. Traditional Inuit society was somewhat weakly organised on scales larger that a few families who shared a winter camp. There were vague conceptions of larger cultural and linguistic groupings among the Inuit, but those identities were somewhat fungible. A lot of early anthropologists of the Inuit read into Inuit labels the kinds of identities they expected to see. Modern Inuit identify themselves somewhat more vaguely - along modern political and geographic lines - most importantly by village - and to some extent along lines that correspond more or less to the dialect lines described at Inuktitut. I don't think any kind of comprehensive list of traditional Inuit groupings exists, or even if one could, I doubt that it would mean a whole lot. Still, some of the subgroupings from Inuktitut should be taken over to here and described. We ought to mention that Inuinnait means the same thing as Copper Eskimo, that the Uumarmiut live in the Mackenzie delta... labels that still have a modern meaning ought to be discussed. --Diderot 18:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Need help with Inuit cuisine

I have created a Native American cuisine and I could use some help. Also what would the Inuit be refered to when talking about Greenland? Native Greenlandic cuisine or Greenlandic cuisine with a native section? I would think that there would be far more history about the natives than any Europeans and than I realize that native people may be great cooks but oral history keeping sucks for posterity. I can't wait to do Icelandic Cuisine, lol. --Rakista 02:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenlandic Inuit is a fairly common way of referring to aboriginal Greenlanders. As for Inuit cuisine... frozen raw seal meat sliced thin, caribou meat and seaweed flavoured with whale fat, fish raw and fried in whale fat... traditional Inuit cuisine is a lot like the famous Monty Python Spam sketch. You can eat meat, or you can get meat with a side of meat, or meat, meat, meat, seaweed and meat. And, if you don't like seaweed, you can substitute meat. Modern Inuit cuisine is a bit more balanced, with servings of Kraft dinner and canned beans accompanying the plentiful meat. --Diderot 09:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Carnivores, I love it a vegan white boy trying to chronicle a race of hardy whalers, fishers and people who actually fought polar bears with spears not guns. I'm sure it will be accurate, lol. Yeah, I am going systematically through and adding native cuisines for all the continents and nations from origins to the present day. After I do all the extant tribes of the earth I am going to do the historical ones like Cuisine of the Ancient Pueblo Peoples. [Hawaiian Native Cusisine for an example], or for something that might be out of my league like Ainu cuisine, which I just started. Thankfully it looks like the Inuit have a lot more English material there is a serious dearth of good Ainu material that I can understand. Revealing the serious dietary conflicts in modern sedentary living versus the active livliehoods of the past is a poignant topic I want to underline throughout the world's natives cuisine. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add: for some example recipes, go to Inuit [email protected]. The recipes look more or less right to me. Meat, in meat sauce, and if you're lucky, a paste made from the half-digested contents of a caribou's stomach. Mm-mm, good! --Diderot 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do, I guess I can prepare these for my meat eating friends. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to modern day or traditional? Traditional would be (mammals) seal, walrus, caribou, muskox, polar bear (not the liver too much vitamin e), moose (southern Inuit especially around Kugluktuk), rabbits, whales and in times of starvation foxes MIGHT have been eaten. Most large birds such as swans, geese, owls, ptarmigan and ducks and their eggs. However I don't recall anyone eating owls eggs nor do owls seem to be a commonly eaten item. Not ravens and gulls as they are scavengers (but the gulls eggs are eaten) and smaller birds like terns, etc. Most fish but I do remember many years ago when someone caught a flat fish in a net it was thrown back. Some plants and berries are also edible. A quote on preparation by Joe Otokiak taken from "The Nunavut Handbook": "It was eaten raw, frozen, dried, boiled to make broth, and aged while sitting in caches and in the animals own fat." Caribou blood was added to the meat to form a broth that gives a feeling of warmth. Rancid seal flippers - that is seal flippers allowed to age in seal blubber while buried in sand during the summer until the fur falls off. I almost forgot the warble flies (I think that's what they are) larva that is found when you skin a caribou (never tried that).

As to what tastes good well pretty much all of them but I must admit that the seal flipper and muktuk were a once only try. Fried seal liver is probably my favourite but the raw liver is hard to eat. There would of course be regional differences in what was eaten as not all the animals would be found. As an example where I live it's not common to get walrus or bear.

The first changes to traditional cuisine would have been the addition of salt, soya sauce and dried soup. Frozen caribou is often dipped in soya sauce. Meat is still boiled but often with the addition of a dried soup mix for flavour and fish chowder is prepared exactly the same way as it would be in the south.

Today it's possible to get southern type foods made from traditional meats such as caribou or muskox burghers. Even the local Northern and Co-op stores in the Canadian Arctic will sell these types of things. CambridgeBayWeather 04:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As above I am going to write enough until I can get a layout that is comfortable and that can readily be added to as more information is researched by me or others. I am currently experimenting with divying them up in ingredients and dishes topped with a cursory history. If there is anything really novel I usually add it at the end, like fast foods / restaurants / and such. Dealing with canabilism that some tribes engaged in is going to be a touchy topic I betcha, lol. I will pry need a boiler plate that tells of the last time things that are considered archaic in this age were known to be engaged in.

The cuisine articles are a hodge podge of layouts and it is hard to navigate them and understand how cuisines fuse, morph and branch off eachother which is the primary knowledge I wish to add to wikipedia. I would like to go about merely adding links, but seeing as no articles exist in the first place for many cuisines I am going to be busy for a long time. Just something else online like web comics to waste my time in graduate school I suppose.

I will be coming back after school and taking the knowledge you so kindly imparted and codifying it up. --Rakista 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Question

How dose your government work?

David switzer User:12.217.26.60

Teh government in Nunavut is democratically elected like any regular government. It is however consensus based rather than party based. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd Question

what is nattik

It's a seal. Also please use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous for that sort of question. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism(?)

Someone copy and pasted the same section over and over again throughout the article. No content was added since then, so I reverted the article to the previous edit. DMAJohnson 05:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that section - I didn't notice that it had been removed. I think it makes sense for it to be in this article. It's not copyvio or anything like that - it was originally written for this article. --Diderot 08:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It hadn't been removed; there were about seven copies of it pasted throughout the article. DMAJohnson 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Project Alaska?

I'm not certain this article belongs in Project Alaska, as the term Inuit is usually reserved for people in Greenland and Canada. Should this be removed? Deirdre 20:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter. The first sentence mentions Alaska and the woman in the picture is from Alaska. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 January 2006.

I agree that Inuit and Eskimo can and are largely used interchangeably in many contexts with no offense intended or perceived. Let's not overcomplicate things or get lost in that whole maze of semantic technicalities. Many Canadians and some Greenlanders and Danes will instinctively attempt to steer clear of that nasty imperialist E-word, but mostly communication floats along smoothly with either term. Apart from the ethnic sensitivities in the United States (and possibly Russia?) the main problems with Inuit are the formations of plurals and genitives and what not. =J //Big Adamsky 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Project Alaska tag encourages editors to help with the Inuit article then it's only a good thing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no doubt that all Eskimos in Greenland are Inuit, I'll add the WikiProject Greenland tag as well. That may get more Danes and Greenlanders (Inuit and otherwise) interested in this article. -- Fyslee/talk 06:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Inuk

Children television program "Inuk" from Canada is something that depicts Inuits. But Inuits them selves may not see them selves this way. Information is need on this programme and it's nature.

Should this be placed as something in the main artical?

ste kokoti nejvetsi chapete to ??????????????dmntii zasrany

Filmography

The previous section hints at this; but shows and media featuring Inuit culture should maybe have a section here, ranging from The White Dawn and Atanarjuat to the Inuk show above, as well as the old Ookpik comic strip and toy. A list of Inuit word-borrowings into English (starting with anorak and mukluk and going from there) should also maybe be here; or somewhere anywaySkookum1 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canadian Territories

Stashing Partial edit by OceanFlynn

Analysis

(Edit temporarily interrupted by the real world) There is a large emerging body of literature provided by Inuit themselves that can now be used to enhance understanding of Inuit belief systems prior to contact. Aupilaarjuk, Mariano, Tulimaaq Aupilaarjuk, Lucassie Nutaraaluk, Rose Iqallijuq, Johanasi Ujarak, Isidore Ijituuq, and Michel Kupaaq. 1998. "Cosmology and Shamanism." in Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.In Canada's North Inuit have largely adopted Christianity. Through careful analysis of Inuktitut language precise accounts of the complex role of the Angakkut both historically and currently are now better understood. The Inuit traditionally practiced a form of shamanism based basically on animist principles. Angakkut, (also spelled Angakuq', angakok) is one of a number of terms in Inuktitut used to describe men or women in the community who had special powers. Works of Inuit art depict the spread of Christianity in Canada's north and the subversion of the role of the Angakuq. Reverend Peck in Pangnirtung, Baffin Island was influential in encouraging the women of the region to perform a ritual sacrifice of an amautiq for Taleelayo, the sea goddess whose existence was inextricably linked with that of the

--Oceanflynn 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References:

Arnakak, Jaypetee. 2000. "What is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?" in Nunatsiak News. Iqaluit, NU [1]

Aupilaarjuk, Mariano, Tulimaaq Aupilaarjuk, Lucassie Nutaraaluk, Rose Iqallijuq, Johanasi Ujarak, Isidore Ijituuq, and Michel Kupaaq. 1998. "Cosmology and Shamanism." in Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.

Iqallijuq, Rose and Johanasi Ujarak. 1998. "The Private and Public Performances of the Angakkut: Discoveries of starvation and cannibalism through ilimmaqturniq." Pp. 159-162 in Cosmology and Shamanism: Interviewing Inuit Elders, edited by B. S. d'Anglure. Iqaluit, NU: Nunavut Arctic College.

Rideout, Denise. 2001a. "Inuit filmmaker, elder win aboriginal achievement awards." in Nunatsiaq News. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010228/nvt10202_13.html

—. 2001b. "Nunavut’s Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit group gets started." in Nunatsiak News. Iqaluit, NU. http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/nunavut010228/nvt10202_08.html

Teevee, Jamasie. 1973. "Taleelayo and Friends." Cape Dorset

Ungalaq, Natar. 1985. "Sedna with a Hair Brush." Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada

---

Merge with Eskimo

A couple of days ago I posted a comment in Talk:Eskimo suggesting to merge the Eskimo article with this article. It seems to be me that both articles are about the same topic; all Inuit groups (tribes(?)). Which in my opinion is only confusing. For example, the Inuit articles says that Eskimos are a subset of Inuits, while the Eskimo articles says that Inuit is a subset of Eskimo. Also, the Eskimo article does not have very much content.Labongo 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is true that now there are not many contributed materials on Wikipedia about non-Inuit Eskimo groups. This fact may justify merging. But in future, this temporary fact may change, because there are more hundred pages of verifyable materials on the Eskimo goups living in Eastern Russia: Sireniki, Naukan, Ungazik groups. These are the (1) Yupik branch and (2) the Sirenik branch of Eskimo languages, and (3) Inuit is the third branch. And Eskimo with Aleut make together the Eskimo-Aleut languages family. The levels of these names can be representated by a tree visually and are based on linguistical comparisons detailed here. In the future, many new contributed materials can come to Wikipedia (for illustration: Sirenik language, a linguistic description, but there are also many ethnographic materials from verifyable sources) about non-Inuit Eskimo groups. If all these non-Inuit Eskimo contributions would be inserted into (or linked to) the Inuit article, then it could make confusion in some rare cases. I think the highly debated name Eskimo is necessary for exact classification. Physis 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert on the field, so could you clarify for me what the hierarchy of the different groups is? The nice tree [2] you provided does not mention Inuit (is it the root of the tree?). After reading the two articles my understanding is that both assume that they are at the root of the tree. The Inuit article states that; "Inuit [...] is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic coasts of Siberia, Alaska, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Labrador, and Greenland (see Eskimo)" . While the Eskimo article states that: "Eskimos, or Esquimaux, are terms used to refer to people who inhabit the circumpolar region [...]. There are two main groups of Eskimos: the Inuit [...] and the Yupik [...]". So my motivation for the merge is to avoid having two "root" articles. If one is actually a subgroup of the other, then I don't support my own suggestion.Labongo 07:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Belated note on the tree. The tree Physis supplied shows Inupiaq, which is the Alaska dialect of Inuit. The map comes from the Alaska Native Language Center, so has an Alaska orientation. --Yksin 23:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that what we have here is a group of well meaning people who are trying to write a single article about the inhabitants of the circumpolar region without realising that the term "Inuit" is not the term used by them all. Over the last 30 years of so the people who live in the Central/Eastern Arctic of Canada have done an excellent job of explaining to the world that they do not like the term "Eskimo" and would prefer to be called "Inuit". In fact they have done such an good job that many people believe that all circumpolar people are called Inuit, speak Inuktitut and use Inuktitut syllabics (other people use the Latin alphabet and speak an Inuit language).

On the other hand the people who live in the Central/Western Arctic of Canada prefer the term Inuvialuit (real people", still use the word "Eskimo" and prefer not to be called "Inuit". In the Inuvialuktun and Inuinnaqtun languages the word Inuit means "people", that is any persons, no matter where they are from or their background.

As to what the people in Alaska call themselves I see that Inupiat says they are Inuit but I do wonder about that. Yupik on the other hand says "They are Eskimo and are related to the Inuit." Based on what I have read and heard, I think the people in Alaska would prefer Eskimo over Inuit and their own names over Eskimo.

As you can see I have left out the people of Greenland and that is because although they are related I don't have any knowledge of what they call themselves. I would suggest that everybody look at the talk pages of both this article and the Eskimo article and see some of the other comments on this subject. There is a similar one to mine above called "Are we going to act?". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Labongo,

Excuse me for the tree, which I mentioned, did not contain Inuit (just a specific group of them). A better tree can be seen at Ethnologue report for Eskimo-Aleut. There is also a better distribution map than that I had provided before, for it may give a better overview.

Also I found now that the Inuit article suggests, that term Eskimo may be regarded as more restrictive than Inuit. Maybe the possible confusion can be ameliorated by mentioning at that place in the text something like “The term Eskimo is also used in some linguistical or ethnographical works to denote the bigger branch of Eskimo-Aleut languages (the other one being Aleut), in this usage, Inuit (together with Yupik, and maybe also Sirenik), are subbranches of Eskimo” (sorry for my bad English).

Unfortunatelly, neither I am an expert on this area. I began to learn Sirenik language and the language of Siberian Yupik, but my knowledge on Eskimo-Aleut people, culture and languages is no more than beginning level.

Thank You for Your reply, and best wishes,

Physis 13:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Physis, thank you for the clarification. Based on the language hierarchy (also shown in Eskimo-Aleut_languages), Inuit is a subgroup of Eskimo. Hence the articles should not be merged, but the Inuit article needs to be changed to reflect this.Labongo 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Labongo,

Thank You for Your reply. I have added to Inuit#Eskimo:

The term “Eskimo” is also used in some linguistical or ethnographical works to denote the bigger branch of Eskimo-Aleut languages (the other one being Aleut). In this usage, Inuit (together with Yupik, and maybe also Sirenik), are subbranches of Eskimo. See details in articles Eskimo and Eskimo-Aleut languages.

and I extended the leader text of the cited article Eskimo with a short summary on classification, and references.

Best wishes,

Physis 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - it's highy time that offensive Eskimo page was dealt with. After the merge, the Eskimo page can be replaced with a pointer to this page, the disambiguation page, and whatever little relevent information should be on that page, than this page. 66.46.158.227 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As explained above I oppose my own suggestion, since I was explained that Eskimo consists of the two groups Inuit and Yupik. The Eskimo article states that Inuit's find the term offensive. Note that I have limited knowledge about the difference between Inuit and Yupik, so I do not know whether they consider themselves to be one people (and hence whether the Eskimo article is needed at all).Labongo 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, 66.46.158.227, the Yup'ik people find using the term "Inuit" to refer to them as offensive. Unfortunately, you can't avoid offending people. It's no good saying "Well, Oriental is offensive, so let's just call all East Asians 'Chinese.'". --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 December 2006

A belated addition to this conversation.The debate over the perceived offensiveness of the term Eskimo will no doubt continue, but here's the facts as best I know them:

1. Eskimo is considered to be highly offensive in Canada and Greenland, where the term Inuit is preferred.
2. However, Inuit is not a satisfactory collective term for all people formerly referred to as "Eskimos" because Yupik people are not Inuit and don't like being referred to as such. They are Yupik. Though closely related to the Inuit, they are ethnically and culturally distinct, and their languages (four of them, in fact) are linguistically distinct from the Inuit languages.
3. Eskimo is not considered offensive in Alaska, either by Yupik or Inupiaq (Inuit) people. In fact, in Alaska, Eskimo is preferred over anything else when referring to Yupik and Inupiaq people as a collective. (They also use the term Alaska Natives, but that also includes Alaska-origin Aleuts and Indians, and obviously doesn't include non-Alaska Inuit & Yupiit.)
4. However, because Eskimo is considered to be offensive and pejorative in Canada and Greenland, therefore the Alaska preference Eskimo is not a satisfactory collective term acceptable to everyone.

Conclusion: neither Inuit nor Eskimo is an adequate term covering, in one word, all Inuit and Yupik peoples. There is no satisfactory collective term that is acceptable to all parties. Until such a term magically appears, the solution is to be frank but NPOV in both articles about the problem, to use substitute terms for Eskimo when appropriate (for example, "Inuit and Yupik" when referring to both groups; but never using Inuit for Yupik people, or vice versa), and to simply recognize that different people perceive things differently.

I did some editing in both articles today which I hope helps with the issue, without being offensive to anyone. And also added a lot of info to the Eskimo article about the Yupiit. I don't imagine my edits are the last that will be done. Meanwhile, under no circumstances should the articles be merged. --Yksin 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Inuit and bathing

My father used to know an Inuit who immigrated to sweden told him that in inuit tradition they only shower three times in their life time. The first time is when they are born, the second time when they got married and the third time before their death. Can anybody clarify if this is true?

Han 2006 16 November.

No, it's not true. --Diderot 19:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who put this in?

"...The inuit race also has a longrunning steriotype of drinking mouthwash, in addition to contracting hepatitus and clubbing seals." (Spelling and grammar errors in original.) 68.82.9.59 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Inuit

The inuit's are very amazing people to live in the freezing weather and live in huge ice cubes practicley. They're an igloo doesn't have to be made of ice. "Igloo" is simply an inuit word for house. I am trying to collect information on these remarkable people and if you have any comments please edit this article thank you.

Altaic peoples?

The names of these native peoples/tribes sound similar to the names of Turkic people's of central Asia and the Russian Federation.

Their names,features and geographic locations make them all the more likely to have a common ancestry to the Altaic peoples. I know the Altaic defination is still disputed among lunguists and anthropologist,but if any sources can point to any linguistic or genetic similarity to the Turkic peoples,then it will help to draw a common connection (and not culture or traditions mind you) among altaic people's even though the defination is still a bit unclear.Nadirali نادرالی

Nonsensical speculations. Please note that Wikipedia does not accept original research; see also Pseudoscientific language comparison.--AAikio 09:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

In the opening paragraph, Quebec is referred to as a province but Labrador is not referred to as being part of the province of Newfoundland & Labrador. Canking 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland

I have finally gone public with my new article:

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

-- Fyslee/talk 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing a Source

This article needs to cite [3] as a source. I have seen many examples of content that is the same in both the article and the named website. Lyoko is Cool 13:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Many paragraphs in this article are identical to the content on the website. But it seems as [4] has used this article as a source, since the "References & Links" link on the website points to this article.Labongo 14:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentence

I just removed "In the centuries to follow Inuit contact with explorers varied across the Arctic and later became an Indian tribe." because it made no sense. Does anybody know what it was supposed to say? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.99.140 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual habits

A section of this article notes that Inuits were very open sexually and frequently polygamous. I am hoping someone can clarify this for me. If it means they married more than one person, how common was it for a woman to have more than one husband as opposed to a husband having more than one wife? Anyone have information handy? Thanks. --Flamebait 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than the lack of references this is the major problem with the article. It makes statements about Inuit without stating to which particular group it applies. I've lived in Cambridge/Ulukhaktok for over 30 years and nothing I ever read or heard indicated that Inuit in the Victoria Island area were polygamous. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Diet

The footnoted addition by CambridgeBayWeather is specifically true, so at this time I'm not going to delete it again. However, it is generally wrong, and eventually, when I get to the point of rewriting that entire section, I will delete that statement as it exists. It is specifically true that there isn't a lot of vegetation in some of the areas where Eskimos have traditionally lived, but not at all true over most of their range. The way it is written suggests that as a rule they ate very little if any plants... mostly seaweed. That is not true. Across most of their range they ate a wide variety of tubers, berries, and other plant life. The average vegetable intake was lower than typical of most modern people today, but was not anything close to zero, as is often claimed.

The problem with this is that we do not want to accidentally feed the rumor mill. There are threads running all the time on various forums, blogs, usenet, etc. where people make claims about Eskimo diets. We have to be sure that what we write is not only specifically true, but actually gives a factual connotation and is hard to misconstrue into something other than what we mean.

Note also that that section contains informaton attributed to Vilhjalmur Stefansson, and that too needs to be removed. Stefansson did interesting things, and is valid in some instances as a reference, but not always. He was first and foremost a self promoting explorer, and virtually everything he ever published was intended to attract financial support first, and add to science only second.

The above about Stefansson addresses a point that needs to stand out very clearly in everything we write about Eskimo people and culture. We need to remove the Western centric anthropological theories. What Stefansson thought he saw is not really important, what we want to describe here is what he was actually looking at.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

However, without that particular sentence it appears that the Inuit ate no plants at all which is simply not true.

I've read your remarks a couple of times and I may be misunderstanding them but it looks to me as if you are getting close to original research in the last sentence.

It appears that Vilhjalmur Stefansson#Low-carb diet of meat and fish has been misunderstood in that the practice of the Inuit he lived with has been applied to all Inuit groups. However, without a source it's not possible to refute this.

As I mentioned in the above section this application of the practices of one group being applied to all is a problem throughout the article. A example of this is the igloo myth, yes some Inuit used the igloo but by no means did all of them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your entire edit should be reverted, not just the seaweed phrase. The fact that the statement implies something that is simply not true is the reason it should be deleted. The word "seaweed" does not change it enough to take away the incorrect connotation. That and the fact is that I can not verify any Eskimo people ever eating anything made of seaweed, as opposed to the well documented fact that they did and do pick berries, tubers, grasses, and so forth from the tundra to eat as a matter of course.

That statement is wrong, gives a false impression, and should be removed. I don't know if the cited document supports it exactly as stated or not, but if it does the document is wrong.

The last sentence of my previous entry is not related to original research. But it probably does need some expansion, because I have no doubt at all that it will come up again and again as people cite references, all in good faith, and make gross errors in descibing what something is.

What I mean is that we are interested in what Stefansson saw. When he describes things he personally did see, the description is of value. But when Stefansson tells you what the significance of it is supposed to be to an Eskimo, don't believe it.

There are at least two reasons for that distinction (and some of it might apply to his descriptions of things he saw too, so be very very careful there as well). First, Stefansson was not an unbiased scientist archiving his observations for future generations. He was engaging in fund raising, and if he didn't make it exciting, it didn't sell. Second, while Stefansson is much better than most Western observers, he still is virtually always judging with a Western value system, which is simply not valid when applied to Eskimo cultures.

My statement was not related to original research, but rather to how one can determine what is and what is not a reliable and accurate source or reference. And of course there is no substitute for original research in making that determination!

Incidentally, one does not need a source to refute Stefansson. Instead, if you want to claim his description is generally applicable, you need a reliable source to support that claim.

Yes it is similar to the business with igloos. The only Eskimos that ever came close to eating no vegetables were those who were in fact living, for a short period of time at least, in an igloo.

We need to keep in mind that about one-half of everything in print about Eskimos, and worse than that on the Internet, is not true. There is a great deal of advantage to having someone edit this stuff who actually does know more than just what they read about it in a book written by somebody who studied it for 2 years.

Keep in mind that adding untrue statements with a cite that is not credible (even if it looks to be at first glance) does not help. Deleting something like that because I know personally that it is incorrect, is a good thing. And no, that is not original research... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd Davidson (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the entire sentence "The Arctic has very little edible vegetation resulting in a predominantly carnivorous diet, although some Inuit did supplement their diet with seaweed and other plants." should be removed? I'm not saying that no Inuit ever ate plants. I can assure you that berries and other plants are indeed a welcome treat in our short summer. However, just because nobody here or in Ulukhaktok has eaten seaweed does not mean that there are no Inuit who eat it. Besides the source I quoted in the article there are others. Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut contains at least three different Inuit stating they ate/eat seaweed. Rachel Qitsualik also states that Inuit eat seaweed and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami also state that Inuit eat seaweed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arctic is not a place that has "has very little edible vegetation". And lack of vegetation is not the reason the Eskimos cultures virtually all had a higher meat to plant ratio diet than is common in most modern places today. Most Western people reading this will consider seaweed an unusual plant to eat, and will associate that with the supposed lack of vegetation. As I've stated, we don't want to foster too many of the typically nonsensical things people think are true about the Arctic or the people who live here. Floyd Davidson (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Past tense in gender roles section

I noticed that the section on gender roles is written in the past tense. Is this section historical, or should it be re-written in the present tense? – SJL 04:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence states that it discusses "traditional society"; but perhaps the reason that is done should be mentioned too, to help put it into perspective. And perhaps throughout this article we should make more effort to positively identify when the discussion is about history and when it is about "modern society".

I did do things like go through and put dates on images as appropriate, because a picture of "An Inuit Man" taken in 1907 just isn't the same as it would look today any more than if it were an Englishman.

I'll try to give this point even more attention in the future.Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Floyd Davidson, the section is talking about the older society. Interesting to note though that the picture of the woman in that section could have been taken recently while the man at the top does look much older. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One strategy to deal with this might be to combine the discussion of historical and contemporary culture into one section. Explaining how things used to be, how they are now, and how the Inuit got from there to here would probably help to make both more clear.

Also, I am surprised that the article's main illustrative photo is 100 years old, and does not represent contemporary Inuit. We should be careful not to exoticize our subjects. – SJL 14:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

a users concern about eskimo kissing

If someone has a bit more in-depth knowledge about the sensitiveness that exists on this front, might he possible address the concern raised by an anon user? Please see Talk:Eskimo kissing --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Inuit art?

Dropped by here by way of comments on Talk:Sculpture to suggest this, as Northwest Coast art exists and I suspect a few for other aboriginal cultures as well, although maybe it's a broad subject area needing more work; there's for example the List of Native American artists. I'm not knowledgeable enough or equipped (with time and books) to write it up, but it seems a major topic that should have had an article by now....hmmm turns out there's nothing searchable in wikispace, that gets anywhere near close, for "aboriginal artists" or "First Nations artists", lists or otherwise, although I'm pretty sure there are categories broken down by nation and writer/musician/painter/carver-sculptor; I'll take this up at the Indigenous peoples' and Canada/BC project talk pages, as it seems List of Inuit artists, List of First Nations artists, List of Metis artists and so on certainly seem a worthy undertaking; and for specific nations/groups such as the Anishinabe and Cree and so on; there's a List of notable Mohawks I think, but not artists in particular; I think the Category:Gitxsan also has, like Category:Inuit culture to make a sizeable list page, with much room to grow; same with List of Northwest Coast artists or List of aboriginal artists from British Columbia....I'm not a list-maker, they just seem like good ideas. List of Inuit placenames might have a point, though, laid out like List of Chinook Jargon placenames, with meanings and locations and so on. But anyway, if anyone ever makes Inuit art or Inuit sculpture or anything of the kind, please be sure to list it at Sculpture; I've also proposed Sculpture of Canada/List of Canadian sculptors, there's probably List of Canadian painters already for example....anyway, List of Inuit carvers/List of Inuit sculptors/List of Inuit artists (whatever's preferred or suitable) are hopefully worth category or article/list names...not that _I_ have the time :-) Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh my mistake - or rather that's weird, because I know I searched for it and it didn't come up - there is an article Inuit art, excuuuze me...something to do with the way Wiki's search function works, or rather doesn't; maybe it was because I tried Inuit artists and got nothing; I would have thought a category Category:Inuit artists might exist, within Category:Inuit culture, where also for example Category:Inuit actors, Category:Inuit musicians/Category:Inuit musical groups, and Category:Inuit film-makers etc; or are there just not enough to bother? I guess it's more like there's not enough Wiki editors/writers/time to write it all up, really....anyway all just food for thought, and hope that someone interested in the broader subject areas fleshes out all the possible articles; but of course the whole of wikidom is like that, enit? G'nite.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird, ther's Category:Inuit artists but I guess it just doesn't come up in a search; maybe a good idea in such case is somehow, if possible, ot make a redirect where Inuit artists would go to the category page? Is that even possible? At least with a list there can be a redirect to a list comprising the contents of the category; and so this can be the "main article" for the cat, which there isn't one of. Because the cats don't come up in search, obviously; top of the search for [[Inuitartists] was simple Inuit itself, seems like there's more than enopugh material to warrant a separate article, or at least a list.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the two categories, Category:Inuit artists and Category:Inuit musicians, there are only 16 different people in total (Tanya is in both). There would be a few Inuit actors and such around as well, see List of Inuit. It would be possible to make List of Inuit artists/List of Inuit musicians/List of Inuit actors (along with List of Eskimo artists/List of Eskimo musicians/List of Eskimo actors) as redirects to List of Inuit. Then the Inuit list could be changed into a table sortable by "profession". I have both the time and the interest to make the seperate lists but there is another problem. Sources and notability. Here's a list of artists from Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories (Holman), but I have no idea if they are notable enough for an article or inclusion in a list. Both Mona Ohoveluk and Elsie Klengenberg have provided illustrations for books but is that enough. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

The Inuit article receives a minimum of 3 anonymous user vandalisms per day, and sometimes more than 8 per day. Based on the article's history, it's not unusual, and although reverts are done fairly regularly, I would like to suggest this article be semi-protected, limiting edits only to registered users (others could post on the talk page if needed). Would anyone else support this? - Io Katai (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Elderly

The comparison between the elderly and a town library needs to go, regardless of how likely it is. It constitues original, uncited research.--THobern 08:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not constitute research, or original or otherwise (looking up definitions in a dictionary is does not qualify as "original research"). Regardless. I'll add a cite showing that there are authortative sources who have made the same inference.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant it in the Wikipedia sense of the term. An unbiased article cannot simply insert its own little modus ponens, especially

without factual evidence in support. The facts should be clearly laid out, allowing the reader to draw their own inferences.--THobern 10:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Invalid

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia policy does not allow for original research, which the speculation comparing a library to the elderly constitutes, it is not even a fair comparison. I don't want to get bogged down, but it is not a fair comparison as books aren't a drain on limited resources. Secondly, its obviously unverifiable and unrelated the to questionable source that it follows. --THobern 07:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Research is fact finding. The facts are from cited authorative references. Hence there is no original research. That is the obvious comparison to be drawn from the cited facts. Thus it is not research, original or otherwise. What it does is provide perspective with which a reader can determine what significance the facts have. That is appropriate because as the initial statement in that section notes, there is a known to be false concept widely believed. The point is to provide readers with accurate conceptualization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floyd Davidson (talk • contribs) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not the Article's place to draw parallels, especially invalid ones. The reader should be able to do that themselves if they choose. If it were a quote from a notable commentator, that is one thing. But this is still original synthesis. It does constitute original research under Wikipedia guidelines; "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material".--THobern 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now we have an idea what you are objecting to! "parallels, especially invalid ones" does suggest that your biggest problem is that you don't think it is true! (Ahem, that is original research that you want to insert into the article.) Whatever, I've added one more cite. Please find a copy of the book, read it, and then lets do discuss it, because otherwise you will no doubt totally misunderstand the book (most reviews miss the most significant points), and will continue to believe as you do now.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My views are irrelevant. It is a false analogy from my point of view, but if you were to read the wikipedia policy, you'd see its forbidden to add your own Modus ponens into an article, however valid you believe them to be. I'm not objecting to the elderly being a source of cultural knowledge, just the inane comparison to a Library. Read the page on original research that I linked to.--THobern 04:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your view is indeed irrelevant. That is because I have cited authorative sources which say that it is valid to compare elders (which, BTW, is different than "the elderly", in a culture with an oral tradition to a library in a culture with a written tradition. It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the functional operation of cultures with an oral tradition, because it is inane to call that concept inane. Regardless, there are now cites for everything other than that a library is a repository for knowledge and that in our culture we do not condone burning down libraries. Do you want me to provide cites for those concepts too?

Floyd Davidson (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they aren't a source of knowledge, but you may not insert the part about burning Libraries. Read the policy.--THobern 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Read the cites. Stop arguing in circles.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment from someone who isn't involved. The comparison between burning books and neglecting elders is fine as a quote from a qualified and notable source, but Wikipedia is not qualified to say it. It's not so much WP:NOR as an issue with the tone that section of the article. It sounds defensive and angry, which isn't surprising given the allegations, but isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. The burning bit is just the tip of the iceberg on the way the article sounds.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its OR. In detail:

Fact 'A': There is a pervasive belief that the Inuit left their elderly on the ice to die.

Fact 'B': The elderly are a repository of knowledge.

SYNTHesis: They weren't left on the ice because they are repository of knowledge.

Its the 'because' thats the synthesis. Floyd Davidson will have to find a source to substantiate that 'because' if he wants to keep that (sans-source == novel) conclusion. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Yankee. Davidson, read the policy, I'm not arguing in circles. I repeat, read the policy. --THobern 08:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

The comparison between elders and libraries is from a cited authorative source. The concept that elders could not be "sacrificed" is fully explained in a cited authorative source. There are indeed, though, two assertions which are not supported by external references, one is that it is commonly believed that Inuit elders were sacrificed and the other is that our culture does not condone burning libraries. Do we actually need to cite a reference for those?

The OR here is from people who insist that the myths of their own culture are true, and want the encyclopedia to support those myths despite valid evidence that the myths are false.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If it were cited as a quote I would have no problem with it. I'd never heard the "sacrificed elders" claim before, and just as a point of word choice "sacrificed" will probably mean human sacrifice to a reader not familiar with the issues, and I don't think that's what you meant.

The way this section reads it sounds like it's trying to convince the reader of something instead of just reporting the facts. Read WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV.

Stating that elders were valued and respected as sources of knowledge and history is fine. Just glancing around a google search, I don't see the claim refuted, including pages that would seem to include the views of the community [5]. It's phrased there as a conscious self-sacrifice, "Elders sacrificed themselves for survival of the group" not senilicide per se.

"Among the Inuit, claims of countenanced senilicide are both true and untrue. There was widespread if not general acceptance that the aged individual could decide that he or she could no longer contribute effectively to the collective, and ask that a family member or friend end their life. However Iglulik myth reveals a social antipathy towards the involuntary killing of the elderly, generally provid[ing] [for] some miraculous form of rescue . . . with a cruel and ignominious death for those who abandoned them.” [6], the article is quoting G. Holm, Ethnological Sketch of the Angmassalik Eskimos, 39 MEDDELESER OM GRONLAND 74 et seq.(1914), quoted in E. ADAMSON HOEBEL, supra note 12 at 77.

Again, voluntary choice vs. murder is a big distinction to make.Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your references are not credible.

The first one, which you quote as saying that elders sacrificed themselves has several problems for you. One is the use of the word "sacrifice". But the major problem is that the very same article claims very adamantly that in those times the people were taught to fear death; yet the only way this business of self sacrifice has been explained is the claim that Eskimo culture assumed a better life after death and therefore did not fear it. The contradictions to what you argue make the source less than useful.

The cite of law.bepress.com comes close, and I considered after a glance through it the idea of putting it into the article (since part of it does in fact support what I've been saying). But a close review demonstrates that it is not useful. The author of the article is not an authorative source and has no expertize on the subject at all. He cites two references, one of which is clearly useless (an article on Greek law???). The second cite may or may not be accurate, which is interesting because what he quotes from it is the part that supports what I've said. However, the cited reference is as quoted from even another work, which was done in 1914. There is no way that citing an article that cites an article that cites something from 1914 that I cannot read myself is a reasonable reference!

Floyd Davidson (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I have reverted the edit by THobern because there is no evidence that the deleted text is not valid, and there is ample evidence that it is indeed correct. Removing without clear evidence that it is not valid is nothing less than Original Research (aka, your mythology is truth by definition). Floyd Davidson (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on inclusion, not removal. If it is challenged and can't be supported, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I don't have any stake in this article, but this is an underlying principle of the wikipedia project and is not lightly tossed aside. Without insisting on verifiable sources, this is just a bunch of guys on the internets making things up.

Wikipedia does not dispel myths or prove a WP:POINT. It is simply a collection of verifiable information, not the WP:TRUTH.Somedumbyankee (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! And since the material that is there is 1) accurate and that fact is 2) verifiable it is therefore an unavoidable 3) that anyone wishing to delete or modify it must 4) present logically valid evidence that it is not accurate and provide authorative and credible sources.

An article that cites another article that quotes another article that refers to data in another article (which is exactly what was provided above as a "reference"), is not credible evidence of anything other than how far somone is willing to stretch Wikipedia's (already horrible) reputation in order to have their personal point of view inserted into an article. Floyd Davidson (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we're not here to discuss the truth, just to report the facts. The analogy represents original research because it draws an original parallel. It is not Wikipedia's place to do that. Nobdoy is contesting the facts, just the unnecessary analysis. Read, for the love of all that is holy, the policy.--THobern 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

The present text is going from bad to worse. "There is a pervasive belief that the Inuit left their elderly on the ice to die. This is not generally^{[sometimes it is?]} true. In a culture with an oral history, elders are the keepers of communal knowledge. They are the community library^[23], and would no more likely be sacrificed ^[24] than a modern town today would be likely to burn their books (even though historically examples of that have been documented; see Book_burning, Nazi_book_burnings and Library_of_Alexandria for discussions of this as a aberrational behavior in various cultures)."

a) who says -- directly and explicitly -- "not generally true"?

b) what is the alternative to "generally"?

c) the reason why its not generally true needs a direct quotation. WHO's COMPARISON TO BOOK BURNING IS BEING CITED HERE?

d) that juvenile essaying about book-burning parallels needs to go.

-- Fullstop (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

'a) who says -- directly and explicitly -- "not generally true"?'

Virtually every qualified anthropologist. I've added three references.

'b) what is the alternative to "generally"?'

Any good dictionary will provide the answer you need for that one. "General" applies to a whole class, order, group (culture), etc. That is opposed to a specific instance which may apply only to one (abberant) individual.

'c) the reason why its not generally true needs a direct quotation. WHO's COMPARISON TO BOOK BURNING IS BEING CITED HERE?'

Why needs only be referenced to an authorative source. The fact is easily cited. I've done so. The book comparison was already referenced for those who are tedious enough to actually read the references provided.

'd) that juvenile essaying about book-burning parallels needs to go.'

It is correct and appropriate, it is valid, it is from a cited reference, and the fact that it upsets your personal apple cart is not of any significance.

'Sheesh. WTF are "historical examples of aberrational behavior" doing in there anyway? Were the Intuit Nazis? Did they live in Egypt? SYNTH, more SYNTH and yet more SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a school paper for crying out loud.'

The alternative to what is suggested by the language you've quoted is that the same invalid logic which has been applied to specific (and aberrational) instances of sinilicide in Eskimo cultures; which is to say that if the same logic is used it would be appropriate to cite Nazi Germany and various other examples as proof that Western Culture does now and has always condoned sinilicide.

Providing an example where valid logic is obviously correct is a helpful demonstration that it is also correct where the conclusion is not as obvious.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that. We are not arguing facts, as that is not what we are here to do, just the way they are presented. Read the policy. --THobern 10:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

You clearly do not understand what a "fact" is.

"Actually, we're not here to discuss the truth, just to report the facts." --Thobern

Please use a common dictionary, where you will find out that "to report the facts" means to "discuss the truth". "Truth" and "fact" are the same thing. First you've said you don't care if the facts are valid or not, now you you say they also have to be presented in a way that agees with your point of view!

Your argument from the start has been that the presentation relies on facts that you do not agree with, as evidenced by your most recent deletion. The statement of similarity that you want so badly to remove is documented and so credible that you can spend the rest of your life trying to refute it without getting to first base.

"When an elder dies, a library burns." is a statement of fact, making precisely the comparison you object to. It comes from the Alaska Native Science Commission, and the cite provided references an entire article explaining why that is true. There is no distinction between purposely killing elders and purposely burning libraries in terms of the effect it has on communal knowledge.

The facts reported are based on credible references while your edits are based on personal beliefs, which is not appropriate.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the policy. Go on, I dare you.--THobern 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

<Timeout called> Floyd Davidson, we need more about the use of "Two Old Women" sourcing claims here. That is a work of fiction. How do you see it useful sourcing this claim, "cultural taboos against sacrificing elders because they are of extreme value as the repository of knowledge"? This article, "Senilicide and Invalidicide among the Eskimos"-has anybody really read it here? A skim of web hits using it as a reference leads me to believe it might say something a little more nuanced than is expressed here. Actually, a good review of all sources available, including those cited here, might be in order. This one, for example, is a WP:SYNTH in the context used here. A claim about the significance of elders in preserving cultural memory can be sourced by that reference, however there is no "because" that can be attached from it. It's a misuse of the reference to tie this to any conclusions from it at all and try to make some tie to how elderly or infirm people were dealt with in an historical context. Claims have to be tight to the references, editors aren't allowed to draw broader inferences from them here. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, in the past, discussed "Two Old Women" with two experts. One a Yup'ik woman who has an Alaska teaching certificate, has taught Native culture in schools, has given teacher workshops on teaching Native topics, has done cirriculum development for the Smithsonian, and has a Juris Doctorate in Indian Law. I conferred with her some years ago to verify my understanding of the symbolism in "Two Old Women". The other expert is of course Velma Wallis, the author. Neither of them refers to that book as either a work of fiction or as a novel. It is a translation and transcription of Gwich'in oral tradition. Oddly enough it is also sometimes mistaken as a Gwich'in oral history, but it is not that either! It is a parable used to teach a moral. In other words, it is one of the better primary source documents you will ever find for information on an Arctic culture. (I'll leave it to your imagination why a Gwich'in woman would believe that our culture could benefit from the gift of that particular oral tradition! But it does have to do with who actually does set senior citizens afloat on icebergs.)

I have restored the deleted material, and I've also added two more cites to the excessive list that already clutters that paragraph. One is to a work by an Eskimo elder, Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley, who teaches Native methods of knowledge at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. His book "A Yupiaq Worldview" is a 166 page treatise on the significance of Yup'ik elders. The other cite is for a statement by Ernest S. Burch.

We do have facts, and they are from authoritative sources. You can insult them if you like; but you cannot deny them. The material stays unless you can refute it with credible sources. I might note that nobody has attempted such refutation, for the particular reason that they cannot find credible sources. Since no one seems to be even half way familiar with the topic, let me provide a bit of advice: you aren't going to find the sources you search for because they don't exist. If I had access to the University of Fairbanks library I would easily be able to cite several times the number that I have so far. These are merely what I can find on the web and here in the very small Tuzzy Consortium Library in Barrow or on my own shelves.

The point is of course that the paragraph in contention is precisely correct, whether you know what correct is or not. Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a long way go to sell your rationale for using Two Old Women. Two Old Women is a folk story. In the story, two old women are pushed out and left to die. At the end of the story, the group resolves to discontinue the practice. The story comes from an older Athabaskan tale. Athabaskan is only one of many Inuit traditions. The whole discussion in this article needs far better handling here, and sorry-even claims to cultures with oral traditions are sourced at wikipedia with published works of non-fiction. A book that acknowledges itself to be a "legend" cannot be used as a RS simply on the basis of the personal assurances of wp editors. And besides, as I pointed out earlier, the story in Two Old Women contradicts the claim you're making since the practice is confirmed immediately from the beginning of the story when the two women were abandoned to die.

I'll have a look at your newly offered sources-the solution here will have to be through better sourcing of the claims here. As I said, all Inuit peoples are not the same so more care needs to be taken there to attribute what to who better there; the scholarship needs to be raised quite afew notches to sort this issue out properly. And Two Old Women cannot verify the claim there. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand this topic and should not be making judgments about the article, the scholarship, or the sources cited. The errors in your above statement clearly indicate why you should be asking questions rather than making pronouncements.

"Athabaskan is only one of many Inuit traditions." --marginalia

That is an absurd statement. If you don't know what Gwich'in is, or what Athabaskan and Inuit are, you have no business making any kind of assertion about any of them.

"A book that acknowledges itself to be a "legend" cannot be used as a RS simply on the basis of the personal assurances of wp editors." --marginalia

The book acknowledges itself to be Gwich'in oral tradition. If you want to denigrate oral traditions, you certainly should not be spreading your bigotry by editing articles about Inuit history. "Wallis' book is probably a more accurate style of the retelling of an oral tradition" (http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/SOP/SOPv9i1.html) is the way others perceive it.

"Two Old Women contradicts the claim you're making since the practice is confirmed immediately from the beginning of the story when the two women were abandoned to die." --marginalia

Two Old Women is a parable, it is not a history. It is an instrument used to make sure that real people NEVER implement that practice, and does NOT confirm it.

You say it confirms the practice, but Velma Wallis (on page xi of the introduction says "This story told me that there is no limit to one's ability -- certainly not age -- to accomplish in life what one must." To the author it clearly does not tell what you are claiming it does! I would also point out that the very first words of the book, in the dedication, are "This book is dedicated to all of the elders whom I have known and who have made an impression in my mind with their wisdom, knowledge and uniqueness." It then lists two pages of individual names. This is clearly not a book that supports the notion of senilicide, in theory or in practice!

Wallis also foresaw people such as yourself. In the introduction is says, "Sometimes, too, stories told about one culture by someone from another way of life are misinterpreted. That is tragic." She is of course referring to the type of mistaken claims you make about what the story means and what it is. Indeed, Wallis had initial problems being published because many tribal leaders correctly assumed there would be just as much confusion as enlightenment, and they did not want people making the ignorant assumptions that you have stated here!

It is clearly a book that you have never read and that you know virtually nothing about save what distortions you can find on the Internet. It is also clear that "Two Old Women" is indeed RS, and that is not based on anything as silly as your comments, but because it is real scholarship as understood by real Professors. One example is the paper "Why We Should Teach the Works of Velma Wallis" (2005, James Ruppert, PhD).

"As I said, all Inuit peoples are not the same so more care needs to be taken there to attribute what to who better there; the scholarship needs to be raised quite afew notches to sort this issue out properly." --marginalia

Since you clearly are not able to distinguish what the term "Inuit" means, that sort of statement is simply hilarious on its face. And further, please note that virtually everything I write, either in a talk section such as this or in an article, does indeed attribute precisely who and what I am referring to. If you cannot follow the attributions, you should not be attempting to edit the material. The scholarship that needs to be raised is yours!

Floyd Davidson (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Gwich’in nor the Athabaskan peoples, of which the Gwich’in are part, are Inuit/Eskimo, so the Two Old Women does not apply as it's based on an older Athabaskan legend. "...all Inuit peoples are not the same..." is a problem that I have noticed before with the article. Yesterday I found Senilicide (the killing of old people) was never universal among Eskimos. Now, I don't suggest that Straight Dope is in any way a reliable source but it does make a good starting point to look for sources to either confirm or deny the fact that it was more/less common among some groups than others. Two other points, why is there no link to Senicide and is there really any need for the "...(even though historically examples of that have been documented; see Book burning, Nazi book burnings and Library of Alexandria for discussions of this as a aberrational behavior in various cultures)." as it really does not fit with the rest of the section. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So the Athabaskans are not Inuit at all-very good. Then you've proven my point even more strongly--Floyd Davidson, you've wasted too much time defending as a source a book about completely different people which is, no less, a work of fiction derived from a folk legend. The question whether you can use this book as a source here is over, and any further attempts to do so would be purely tendentious on your part. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Marginalia has nothing of significance, other than obfuscation, to add. If you just now determined that Athabaskans and Inuit are different, why have you been editing this article???

The use of a Gwich'in oral history is quite appropriate for several reasons. One is that they live in Northern Alaska, in close proximity to the Inupiat people, and are in many ways indistinguishable (except to an anthropologist). They live in the same environment and necessarily developed the same mechanisms for dealing with it.

Regardless of that, the entire point of the discussion is that citing specific examples of senilicide is NOT an indicator that it is the norm for any given culture. That is true of Inuit culture, yet people insist that because a few informants have provided evidence that it has happened that it is there for an accepted part of the culture. Comparisons to other cultures, and the Gwich'in example is just one of those provided, demonstrates that logically it is not a valid assumption in the case of the Inuit.

We cannot disallow information and references which provide perspective on information and logic in the articles that can and is easily and often misunderstood. The illogical claims that were made previously are refuted by examples from non-Inuit culture where that is not the conclusion drawn from the same type of data.

The arguments provide early on in this section are direct evidence that it is necessary to disambiguate the logic. Floyd Davidson (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quit it already. 5 people have told you that you are constructing an argument, and yet you repeat it ad-nauseum. This is not a forum, nor is Wikipedia a publisher of original thought. Your "provide perspective" and "xyz provides evidence" does not wash because Wikipedia does not want your "perspective" or your "evidence". We want straight-up substantiated points that someone else has already made. Either provide that here and now, or get off the soapbox. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson, what you are doing is making an argument, not writing an encyclopedia article here. I haven't added or sourced any claims to this article about Athabaskans, you have. The story in the book you've tried to use has a story of two women abandoned by their people because they were old and you used it to show that this practice wasn't done, so I don't think it's helpful to go with the logic argument here. Furthermore, what people actually do and what people logically would do are frequently two completely different things. Logically you say people would never burn their libraries, but of course this is silly because we know they have done so. Logically people conclude that all people will die, and are especially more likely to do so when they're very old, and when a people are faced with starvation or other dire perils to the group there might be a lot of logical reasons that saving the "library" isn't at the top of the priority list. So no more about trying to source claims in this article by applying logic--just stick to solid references and let them make the claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of a Gwich'in oral history is quite appropriate for several reasons. One is that they live in Northern Alaska, in close proximity to the Inupiat people, and are in many ways indistinguishable (except to an anthropologist). They live in the same environment and necessarily developed the same mechanisms for dealing with it.

Leaving aside for now the fact that the last two sentences are completly unsourced you can't compare two different groups of people like that. In fact if that is what you are doing then it is original reasearch and needs to go. It's the same problem as has been pointed out several times, you can't say that the practices of one Inuit/Eskimo group is the same as another but in this case the Gwich'in/Athabaskans to Inuit/Eskimo. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We've a good consensus here. The article should not be used to give any "perspective". What action be taken against an user who continues to insist on inserting their POV?--THobern 07:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

This isn't really consensus, it's just policy. The article on disruptive editing gives some guidance. A third (and further) opinion has been found and a request for comment has been made. Mediation WP:RFM appears to be the next step if the problems continue.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Other issues with this page

Given the issue discussed above, I looked through the page and came across some other issues that might be addressed with this article (flagged as needing cleanup without any specifics), so here's a "laundry list" from someone who is approaching this article as a reader with very little background in the subject (4 credits of anthropology and a couple of weeks in Alaska do not an expert make):

• The population number needs a cite
• The section on who is and who is not an Inuit is confusing to read and might be better combined with the nomenclature section. A table of "who is, who might be, who is not" would be helpful.
• The "Early History" section needs some citations, especially external citations.
• The opening sentence of the kayak description is painfully awkward.
• The entire section on culture could use some copy editing.
• The "nomadic or not" section has been challenged. If it's controversial and can't be supported, it's probably best to take it out, but I'm guessing that this kind of information should be available.
• The "Westerners just don't understand" property claim cite could use some support. The cite talks about traditional legal systems and ethics, but doesn't (according to a word search and a quick read) deal with property or territory. Ownership is mentioned as something that is discussed in the course, but the article doesn't say either way how it was handled.
• The Bloody Falls Massacre has a bit of "he said she said" rather than a coherent explanation. General (supported) notes about oral history traditions are an important thing to include, but they don't necessarily refute specific claims about specific events. Written history has a detailed and rigorous tradition, but it is also often proven wrong.
• The raiding section in general needs work. There's a lot of information there that needs citing (e.g. examples of nations and confederations, relative strength). The pacifism-with-poverty claim should also be cited. Desperate people do desperate (usually violent) things, so this is counter-intuitive.
• There are some comments in the raiding section that should be linked to the "traditional law" section. In general, I would put the law section earlier in the article.
• The "suicide, murder, and death" section has issues that have killed themselves and been killed by others, but it is not dead.
  • See previous discussions.
  • The following sentence about famine doesn't really add much to the article and sounds like POV. The reader can make their own conclusions about what happens during a famine unless a source says otherwise.
  • The infanticide section, a firestorm waiting to happen, should probably be cleaned up (narrative style, and overly dramatic at that).
  • The disease section's first two sentences are a "he said, she said" and don't agree. Neither group is cited.
  • The "confession" cite reflects a common Christian belief and isn't really significant to the article. The supporting cite lacks page information.
• The law section is written in a painfully uptight tone ("lest the consequences be dire" sounds silly).Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good rundown. The many of the claims in the article aren't verifiable in the sources indicated either. Claims need to align to sources better in places. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the section on the child with deformitys, should be deleted? It reeks of POV and Original research and synthesis.--THobern 06:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

The section is definitely trying to make an argument, and whether it is convincing or not is beyond me since I have so little background to work with. Fact-tag claims that are unsupported in the cites for now. This is unfortunately an area where the internets aren't very useful for research since oral traditions can't be rapidly copy-pasted onto a web page. Given that actual dates are cited, though, it sounds likely verifiable information exists for the event, just a question of finding it (as well as addressing if it was an unusual case or challenged as a problem with preservation).Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its quite irrelevant whether the arguments are convincing or not. All rationalization (i.e. leading the reader to a conclusion), irrespective of its merits, is an OR violation. The "suggestion" in "That body, dated at about 1200 AD, suggests that Inuit culture has long valued children, including those with birth defects" is not only unsourced (who makes such suggestions?), and obvious OR, no scientist would ever "suggest" that the mere existence of an 800 year old remains is evidence of anything (other than that people died).

On that basis, the bit can vanish. It does not however "reek of POV" (there. is. no. such. thing. as. "pov"). Its only unscientific/unencyclopedic thinking. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By that I meant the attempt to push a particular point of view.--THobern 06:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Overillumination

Could someone with authority take out the reference to "over-illumination"? The referenced link makes mention to diet, but not to over-illumination, and since, as the page on over-illumination points out, even really bright indoor lighting is a small fraction of normal outdoor sunlight, it seems really hard to believe that anyone would develop myopia due to overly bright indoor environments but not the vastly brighter outdoor environments. I am aware that there are other differences between outdoor activities and what you'd do in a schoolroom with respect to eye damage, but the article specifically says "over-illumination". The over-illumination wiki page also makes no mention to myopia. In conclusion, someone needs to either produce a link to something backing it up or take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.191.181 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 13 October 2008

After a quick look it appears that it has little to do with the amount of illumination but the actual school attendance, as seen in the study from the UK in 1813. I changed the sentence and added a couple of references. Over-illumination at school sounds silly when compared to the spring time light levels caused by 16+ hours of sun reflected off the snow and ice. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

inuit

inuit is a tribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.201.72 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad sources in section: Suicide, murder, and death

Sorry people that I don't want to read all the endless discussions here, but the two introducing sentences in suicide, murder, and death:

"A pervasive European myth about Inuit is that they killed elderly and unproductive people." This is not generally true.

are just judgemental, subjective, imprecisely. What is meant with generally? And who says there is an European myth? There are a lot of US-books and other nations, which published the same thing (not as a myth, of course). Simply allow citiations form other sources in that section. Comparing a human with a library sounds like kindergarten; better those phrases are quoted here.

I would suggest to read this book, at least the chapter "Ethnographic Research on Suicide among the Inuit". It's not written and published in Europe, by the way, but Toronto.

Please do research before writing on a sensitive subject, and if there are two point of views, please quote both. It's not forbidden to write: "this subject remains controversial", at least it's better than declaring it as a European Myth. There are many sources which proof that Inuit murdered and did suicide frequently, including Knud Rasmussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grochim (talk • contribs) 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC) -- Grochim (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)