Talk:Eskaleut languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Citations[edit]

Can anyone provide the full citation for Fleming 1987? —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a citation for this? I'm having a hard time finding sources that say verbal agreement is obligatory in Inuktitut. "All Eskimo–Aleut languages have obligatory verbal agreement with agent and patient in transitive clauses, and there are special suffixes used for this purpose in subordinate clauses, which makes these languages, like most in the North Pacific, highly complement deranking."

Yupik[edit]

The article states that "However, recent research suggests that Yup'ik by itself is not a valid node". Can anyone provide a citation for this assertion? —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Inuit[edit]

Inuit is *not* an acceptable term for all Eskimo peoples. It is only acceptable for Eskimos of the Eastern Canadian Arctic. I have talked to non-Inuit Eskimos who are constantly irritated that people try to be politically correct and call them "Inuit" when the "Inuit" are a different people than they are.

"Eskimo" is still used by scientists and linguists and anthropologists to refer to all Eskimo groups, while the use of "Inuit" is limited to refering to Eskimos of the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Node ue 01:42, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)


Is there anything these people wish to be called other than Eskimo? --Saforrest 22:24, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Collectively, no. Many Eastern Canadian Eskimos prefer the term Inuit, and many Alaskan Eskimos prefer the term Yup'ik. --Node 08:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be more accurate, both Eastern and Western Canadian Eskimos are quite happy with the term Inuit, as are, I believe, some of the western Alaskan Eskimos. I think it depends mostly on language. Those who speak Inuktitut-In~upiaq are Inuit, those that speak Yup'ik are Yup'ik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.128.4 (talkcontribs)

62.254.128.4's quite right. I'd go a step further, and say that among English-speaking Canadians today, 'Eskimo' is nearly as unacceptable as 'nigger'. Western Inuit often prefer to be called Inuvialuit, but as far as I know there's no mood in Canada for reverting to the name 'Eskimo'. I can't imagine any of my friends in Canada saying that other than as an insult. (The French equivalent esquimaux isn't quite as unacceptable, but it's moving that way...) QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree to some extent with the classification of "Eskimo" as an exonym, at least in Alaska. Having lived in Alaska, the term is definitely used quite widely, both by white and indigenous Alaskans. The terms "Yupik", "Yup'ik", and "Inupiaq" are certainly used as well by the respective groups. The term "native" is also used quite widely to refer to all indigenous groups in Alaska. The term "Eskimo" is not considered derogatory in Alaska. —Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 20:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's this absurd fuss about? "Eskimo" is nothing more than a Cree word eskwimwew "eaters of raw meat". What did Inuit eat all these thousands of years if it was not raw meat?? Is it racist simply because the Inuit didn't get along with the Cree and therefore don't like Cree names for things? Can anyone respond to this site talking about the origins of the word[1]?

Goddard writes: "In the 1970s in Canada the name Inuit all but replaced Eskimo in governmental and scientific publication and the mass media, largely in response to demands from Eskimo political associations. The erroneous belief that Eskimo was a pejorative term meaning 'eater of raw flesh' had a major influence on this shift. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference meeting in Barrow, Alaska, in 1977 officially adopted Inuit as a designation for all Eskimos, regardless of their local usages [...]."

--Glengordon01 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's true: from a certain point of view it's absurd. But word origin is rarely a indication of pejorative sense. A term is pejorative so long as people feel that it is. So it is that Eskimo is adopted by many if not most in Alaska, while it is considered pejorative in Canada. But note that this may be changing, as more and more Alaskans are using indigenous terms -- even going so far as to differentiate Cupik vs. Yupik (based on a dialect division). The difficulty in Alaska is the lack of a convenient overarching term to include both Yupik and Inupiat (and now Cupik, Sugpiaq, etc. -- these all being terms for 'real person(s)' in various languages). Note that today, some 30 years after the Barrow meeting, the ICC continues to fudge the issue by including all Eskimo languages but tacitlty avoiding reference to any cover term. ICC Alaska --Gholton (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Recent classifications have placed Inuit as a fifth (?) branch of Yuppik. I think that's well supported, but don't have the info on hand. kwami 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the issue is the breadth of the Yupik subgroup. This most certainly includes Central Yupik, Siberian Yupik, and Sugpiaq (Pacific Coast); but some other languages now classed under Yupik may belong coordinate with Inupiaq in a Yupik-Inuit tree. --Gholton (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Asian emigration of Eskimo-Aleut peoples[edit]

An edit was made recently on the article that suggested that Eskimo-Aleut (EA) could have come over as early as 15,000 years ago. Yet this is too extreme to be believed and contradicts the current linguistic evidence now. Joseph Greenberg's work can say nothing on the matter because mass comparison is simply not considered secure evidence by linguists, however the data collected in recent books like that of Michael Fortescue (Language Relations across Bering Strait, 1998) seem to suggest that EA came over recently, even as late as 4000 years ago (see Uralo-Siberian languages). Greenberg has to be forgotten now. We live in the 21st century, not 1950, people! /:P --Glengordon01 09:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only covers the basic information on the topic, and as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aleutian islands missing from the map[edit]

Obviously it would be difficult to squeeze the Aleutian islands into the existing map, because it would require zooming out so much that the map would become too difficult to read. But on an article about the "Eskimo-Aleut languages," we certainly need to include the Aleutian islands in the only map on the page! A couple possibilities: 1) include a small box in the existing map with a dislocated view of the Aleutians 2) add another, separate map of the Aleutians. babbage (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taa?[edit]

I downloaded a Greenlandic-English dictionary from this website, which says that taa (as well as ta) means "listen I tut! What can that be?", but this article says it means "human being". So it can't be right. But I can't change that, because I don't know what it translates to in the other Eskimo-Aleut languages. Whoever made that table seems to be an expert, however, so maybe they could. 80.42.102.93 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my knowledge the taa that means "listen" is a short form of a verb (either qakkuakkuutaa or tusarpaa) that just happens to look identical to the old root for human being that is no longer used in west Greenlandic.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northern Asia[edit]

This article seems to be marrred by geopolitcs. Surely there is a continuum of languages between Western Alaska and Eastern Siberia. But the map only show the New World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.219.11 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification[edit]

Qawiaraq language[edit]

Is Qawiaraq language a Central Siberian Yupik language as said here or a Seward Peninsula Inupiaq language as said there ?

Uummarmiutun dialect[edit]

Does Uummarmiutun dialect belong to Inuvialuktun as said here and there or to Inupiaq language as said there ?

Arno Lagrange  06:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uummarmiutun. Both Inupiaq language and Uummarmiutun say that the dialect is spoken only in Aklavik and Inuvik in the NWT. The Uummarmiut themselves are Inupiat (originally Nunatamiut) from Alaska who moved to Canada in 1910. So yes Uummarmiutun would be a dialect of the Inupiaq language. However, if you look at the Inuvialuit Regional Corp.'s page on languages it's also listed there. Then at the Language Geek page it also says that Uummarmiutun is included with Inuvialuktun but is considered part of the Inupiaq dialect. So I think that it needs to be included with both groups. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 15:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pulaatxix̂[edit]

The cognate chart says that the Aleut word for "tent" is pulaatxix̂, but the Aleut article says Aleut doesn't have /p/. And the only Google hits for pulaatxix̂ that I can find are on sites that mirror the Wikipedia article. What's going on there? --Nortaneous (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Aleut Lexicon : pulaatxi{ tent (Note: The not-funt letter { is x̂) --Kmoksy (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


interesting...who in kalmyk(mongolic) is KEN, in tatar(turkic) KIM...then many turkic languages for DOG are KOEPEK,QOEPEK etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.184.253 (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Range map[edit]

The range map used here is incomplete in three regards:
1/ The Russian areas are omitted
2/ Part of Greenland is omitted
3/ The map indicates that the E-A speaking range does not include Ellesmere Island, Cornwallis Island, Banks Island and certain other inhabited islands of Canadian Arctic Archipelago. This is not correct.

The map is someone else's work so I don't necessarily want to edit it, but perhaps we can come up with a better map.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siberia[edit]

Siberia is elsewhere in Russia (central north asia). Where these languages are spoken is actually the Russian Far East. Just to make that clear... 99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siberia is all of Russian Asia. — kwami (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia (Even in the article for Siberia itself, the area in question is only incorrectly associated with Siberia).99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just because you say normal English usage is "incorrect" doesn't make it so. We don't say Siberia District, we say Siberia. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So does this mean if, in the German language, they decide to refer to all of Great Britain as England, that they should then conflate the terms on a page for England? Should they write an article on England and include Glasgow, or should they base the article on how the country is divided within its own political boundaries? 99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I forgot to add: In Russia, Siberia is a specifically defined Geographical area even outside of the federal district of Siberia which does not include the areas mentioned. IF you want, I can write an article on New York, British North America, but unfortunately, this is not a verifiable fact.99.236.215.170 (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Siberia. You might want to read articles before you refer other people to them. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the article on Siberia: 'Soviet-era sources (Great Soviet Encyclopedia and others)[34] and modern Russian ones[35] usually define Siberia as a region extending eastward from the Ural Mountains to the watershed between Pacific and Arctic drainage basins, and southward from the Arctic Ocean to the hills of north-central Kazakhstan and the national borders of both Mongolia and China. By this definition, Siberia includes the federal subjects of the Siberian Federal District, and some of the Urals Federal District, as well as Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, which is a part of the Far Eastern Federal District. Geographically, this definition includes subdivisions of several other subjects of Urals and Far Eastern federal districts, but they are not included administratively. This definition excludes Sverdlovsk Oblast and Chelyabinsk Oblast, both of which are included in some wider definitions of Siberia.' So not only is it by definition not a part of Geographical Siberia, it's also not a part of the political region. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not a Soviet-era source. Nor are we a modern Russian one. We're an English-language source, and the rest of the article supports "Siberia" for this article. It's hard to believe you could extract that excerpt without reading the rest of the article, which means it's hard to believe that you're operating in good faith. Rather, you appear to be cherry-picking the tidbit that agrees with you and sweeping the rest under the carpet. There's a word for that. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, I am agreeing with the general view within Russia, as the area is found within Russia. To refer to the area as Siberia is something done outside of Russia with naivete. Most people are not very well acquainted with the modern day situation and geography within the country, but it doesn't mean that this should take precedence. You are more familiar with antiquated terminology, fine, but why not use a more precise definition. Even IF the area were "siberian", Russian Far East is more accurate as it's a smaller area. Saying eastern Siberia and associating it with the wider area could lead one to believe it's spoken as far west as Kazakhstan or Mongolia. I just don't see why you would wish to stick with a more imprecise term. By the way: Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a source, it's built on real primary sources. When you say 'we're an english speaking source' first of all that's wrong, secondly whether an source is in English or not has no bearing on whether it can be used as a primary source: that's ethnocentrism. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add, the name which I believe would be more accurate is the name of this region: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Eastern_Federal_District. Conversely, Chukotka would be another solution. But referring to it as Siberia seems to me about as accurate as talking about "the middle east" and including both Western Saharah and Pakistan. They are both included in the very widest definition of Middle East, but it is not necessarily the best way to talk about the countries. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the Siberia article which you referred me to to back up your POV, Chukotka is in Siberia. Everyone knows where Siberia is; relatively few have heard of the various Russian district names. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article I referred you to includes the area in question only as the broadest possible definition, and which is not universally accepted by everyone (obviously, or else there would be no need for the various definitions). Using a more specific definition, and one which isn't contentious, and one which would not need to be explained (the Russian Far East, who would possibly misconstrue this??) is better considering the relatively small area in which the languages are actually present. We are using the broadest definition of an area so vast if it were on its own it would be the largest country in the world in order to describe a very small area (where these languages are spoken). It's like saying French is the main language spoken in the western part of America... (referring to Québec)
Also, the Russian Far East is not only a federal district, though is shares the same name, it's also a geographical definition. Furthermore, the article about the Chutkotka Autonomous Oblast states that the oblast is in the Russian Far East: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug so I don't know where you are getting your claim. The article on the peninsula itself also states nowhere in the article that it's in Siberia, I just don't understand what you are not seeing here... 99.236.215.170 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll gather several sources which refer to the geographical location of the Chukchi Peninsula as well as more specific information about the Russian Far East, which can serve as citations I guess if people are unfamiliar with the term:

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Far_East
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukotka_Autonomous_Okrug
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chukchi_Peninsula
  4. http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/chukchi-peninsula.html
  5. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/russia/russian-far-east
  6. http://www.rusemb.org.uk/russiageography/ (Note References to Siberia and the Russian Far East)
  7. http://forest.mtu.edu/pcforestry/resources/studentprojects/siberia.html

I just don't understand the apparent shock the other fellow feels about referring to the region as the Russian Far East, it's more specific. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion: I've read through the detailed discussion above and briefly looked through this and the related articles. I would say that even though referring to it as "Russian Far East" is more precise than using "East Siberia" (in terms of actual political division)...I would tend to favour the latter. From WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." and finally it also cautions us against using ambiguous and inaccurate names—I don't think that "Siberia" falls that badly into any of those categories. The article Chukchi Peninsula mentions exactly where it lies, no one disputes this fact. It's just better to refer to it here in this way, for the better understanding of our readers. No doubt those curious about this can see the actual political divisions in the main Siberia page. Hope this helps, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead states, "The Eskimo–Aleut languages are among the native languages of the Americas. This is a geographical category, not a linguistic one." I assume that "not genealogical" or "not genetic" is what is actually meant by "not linguistic". If so, the lead should be clarified accordingly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eskimo-Aleut cognate table[edit]

For the table, I plan on separating each section into groups. I will later explain what is happening in the cognate sets, so the table will be more comprehensible. I also have a valid source that I can add to the table because i see that there isn't one available now. I will also alphabetize the lists and separate the pronouns into separate tables (independent pronouns and pronominal suffixes)

Position among the languages of the world[edit]

I'm going to add a little bit more background context on this section because it seems too brief

Notable features[edit]

Under the subsection notable features, I will further contribute to some examples, as well as enhance the facts to make the information more rich .

Phonology & Grammar[edit]

I think there should be a section or sections on phonology and grammar, so I will add one. It will make the table easier to read and follow along to. There are some phoneme charts on other Wikipedia pages, but there are no links on this page that directs the readers to them. I will also add in the introduction at the top of the page a phonological pronunciation of "Eskimo-Aleut"

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eskimo–Aleut languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Map is incomplete it needs to include Siberia[edit]

The map in incomplete as it excludes the Siberian portion of the languages as it only includes the North American part of the languages Lunacats (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to rename article: Eskimo-Aleut languages → Inuit-Yupik-Unangan languages[edit]

I would like to propose renaming the article to Inuit-Yupik languages, with Eskimo-Aleut languages redirecting to that page. The term "Inuit-Yupik-Unangan" is technically correct, is based on endonyms rather than an exonym. The term "Eskimo" is an exonym. Its use in Alaska is declining. In Canada it is considered a racial slur. Dowobeha (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Eskimo-Aleut is the standard term used by linguists, it would be confusing to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I am a linguist who works on Yupik. You are definitely correct that the term Eskimo-Aleut was standard for a long time. My experience is that linguists who work with these languages have recognized since at least 2000 that the terms "Eskimo" and "Aleut" are not appropriate for ongoing usage. While there is not a complete consensus regarding the replacement, if you look at recent citations, most use either Inuit-Yupik-Unangan or Eskaleut. Dowobeha (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose While the term Eskimo is considered a slur the word is sill used a lot. At the same time the use in "Eskimo-Aleut language" is still very common. To move to Inuit-Yupik-Unanga you should provide sources that show that the language group is commonly called that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The name Eskimo is charming for Alaskan Natives (including Eskimos: Sugpiat, Yup'ik, Cup'ik, Cup'ig, Siberian Yupik and Inupiat) --Kmoksy (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment @Dowobeha: Can you probably help us out with a short survey of the usage in the relevant literature, especially the last 5 years? I won't easily dismiss "Inuit-Yupik-Unangan" out of hand just because "Eskimo-Aleut" has been familiar for a long time. I find the new term in sources like this 2020 dissertation (Inuit-Yupik-Unangan [...] historically known as Eskimo-Aleut), and also mention of it in Alana Johns's chapter "Eskimo-Aleut" in The Routledge Handbook of North American Languages (Eskimo-Aleut [...] sometimes called Eskaleut or Inuit-Yupik-Unangan, p. 524 in the printed version). Johns (a Canadian emeritus who has spent much of her life studiying Inuktitut) is of course fully aware of the connotational baggage of the term "Eskimo" and also talks about it in the same chapter, yet she does not follow using "Inuit-Yupik-Unangan". I personally prefer to follow the usage of high-quality overview sources like the Routledge Handbook, unless it is strongly at odds with the general usage among specialists (occasionally conventions in tertiary sources are streamlined for a wider context and thus not fully representative). –Austronesier (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll try to come back later with a more extensive list, but here are a few to start with: Dowobeha (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 - The Nunavut Hansard Inuktitut–English Parallel Corpus 3.0 with Preliminary Machine Translation Results
 - Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use
 - Strunk 2020
 - Central Yup'ik and Machine Translation of Low-Resource Polysynthetic Languages
 - The Routledge Handbook of North American Languages
 - Naukan ethnobotany in post-Soviet times: lost edibles and new medicinals
 - Case as an Anaphor Agreement Effect: Evidence from Inuktitut
 - Toward a new conceptualisation of language revitalisation
I've been through the literature on google scholar and even amongst the most recent literature, Eskimo-Aleut is the prevaling term. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the prevailing term turns out to be Inuit-Yupik-Unangan in the coming decades, we can consider changing the article title then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Inuit-Yupik-Unangan has gained currency in recent years[1][2][3][4][5], and Eskimo is a considered a racial slur, especially in Canada. A Google scholar search finds that most linguistics articles since 2020 use Inuit, Inuit-Yupik, or Inuit-Yupik-Unangan, rather than Eskimo-Aleut (though anthropology papers seem to still use this nomenclature Naulagmi (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

"Oppose Eskimo-Aleut is the standard term used by linguists, it would be confusing to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)"

And they should stop using that, it's offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talkcontribs) Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Fails COMMONNAME and is unfamiliar. I would support moving the article to Eskaleut languages per the recent RS's of Fontescue, Berge, and Dorais, As @Dowobeha themself states, Dorais (2010) is state-of-the-art for the family and uses "Eskaleut"; Dorais (2014) The Language of the Inuit does the same. That would address the Canadian aversion to "Eskimo" without losing our readers. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also support moving the page to Eskaleut languages. Dowobeha (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather, Hemiauchenia, Kmoksy, Naulagmi, and Austronesier: Does "Eskaleut", following Dorais (2010, 2014), Fontescue, Berge, etc. work for you? — kwami (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eskaleut is fine. Don't need to and drop the "languages". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I meant "Eskaleut languages" as the actual title. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes: Eskaleut (languages, peoples, migration) Kmoksy (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you suggesting an article that should be moved to Eskaleut people? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'Comment I think this section is a bit confusing, very obscure, and a proper Wikipedia:Requested moves should take place. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started a formal request below. — kwami (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion regarding names, with citations[edit]

It appears that there is significant discussion here on this talk page and on Talk:Eskimo. The corresponding articles mirror that to some extent. To assist in respectful discussion, I am creating this section to keep track of recent and relevant references:

To summarize, I would argue that a clear consensus has emerged over (at least) the past 25 years that Eskimo is not the best term. While the term Eskimo-Aleut is still sometimes used, there is a consensus that a better term is needed, and the terms Eskaleut, Inuit-Yupik, and Inuit-Yupik-Unangan are consistently used in the literature today. Overall, there is a clear consensus that the individual endonyms Inuit, Yupik, and Unangan should be preferred wherever possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowobeha (talkcontribs) 12:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Dowobeha (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dowobeha I moved this to the bottom. Nobody will see or reply to it at the top. Most of this is already in the various articles. By the way have you heard of Inuktut? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CambridgeBayWeather Thanks for the reference. Yes, I'm familiar with the term Inuktut. That works fine for what it is, but it's not a term that encompasses Yupik languages and Yupik peoples.
-Dowobeha (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, I'd be happy with "Eskaleut" if that works for people. The long compound name failed to achieve consensus.
There's a problem with the EB reference, in that "Inuit" is not a synonym for "Eskimo". Also, the academic Alaskan Inuit I know call themselves "Eskimos". I don't know, maybe that's because it's an inclusive term that doesn't exclude Yupik? It really seems to be Canada where the word is a problem. Not saying we shouldn't be sensitive to that, just that IYU doesn't seem to be a viable alternative. — kwami (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, in Alaska in general, the terms "Eskimo" and "Aleut" are still sometimes used, but the usage is definitely and rapidly decreasing. In my experience, the term "Eskimo" is found in roughly two situations:
  • 1) As part of formal organization names that were formed decades ago (for example, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, or the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics). In some of these cases, such as the World Eskimo-Indian Olympics, the organization is currently considering a name change
  • 2) In informal usage and casual conversation by some Alaska Natives, usually by older Alaska Natives who are Yup'ik or Inupiaq and who grew up in the mid-20th century using the term.
I work at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and I know that the Alaska Native faculty that I work with have consciously chosen to not use the term "Eskimo." My experience in informal settings is that the term "Eskimo" is also not commonly used among younger Yup'iks and Inupiaqs, and the term "Aleut" is not commonly used among younger Unangans.
Overall, my experience is that there is solid academic consensus that the terms "Eskimo" and (to a lesser degree) "Aleut" should no longer be used.
-Dowobeha (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Eskaleut languages. No such user (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Eskimo–Aleut languagesEskaleut languages – There may be consensus for a move, but an editor requested a formal move request.

The current name is common in the literature, but the word "Eskimo" is problematic (considered pejorative in Canada). "Eskaleut" is a common alternative. It is used, for example, by the state-of-art treatment, Louis-Jacques Dorais (2010, 2014) The Language of the Inuit.

Pinging people who voted above: @Dowobeha, CambridgeBayWeather, Hemiauchenia, Kmoksy, Austronesier, and Naulagmi: — kwami (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just a formal move but to get further input from others who don't have this page watchlisted. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support to the undisambiguated Eskaleut as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages). "Articles on language varieties (i.e. languages, dialects or sociolects) can be titled with the bare name of the variety where this is unambiguous (e.g. Bokmål) or where it is unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. Arabic, Kannada, Arvanitika)." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support "Eskaleut languages" is sufficiently common (unlike "Inuit–Yupik–Unangan languages" which was discussed before) and less problematic than the current title. Also support to include "...languages"; nor for disambiguation, but because language families are generally referred to in this way e.g. in book titles[2], encyclopedia entries (e.g. in this volume) etc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) only applies to individual languages. See also Category:Language families. –Austronesier (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support [although it may be confused with the "Eski Aleut" (literally: "Old Aleut") in Turkish]. Kmoksy (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Eskaleut is still mildly problematic, but is significantly better than the status quo. I would also strongly support use wording that makes use of individual sub-family names (Inuit, Yupik, Unangan) whenever practical. -Dowobeha (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom. Originoa (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No opposition If this is already has considerable use in the scientific literature, then I'm fine with it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.