Talk:Eskimo words for snow

"Eskimo" is not an acceptable categorization of people

Would someone who is editing this page please help it join the TWENTIETH century (yes I know it is the twenty-first now)?

Eskimo became unacceptable usage for anyone not in elementary school decades ago. Unless, of course, you are referring to an ice cream treat.

I understand the historical reference to "Eskimo words for snow" is historical, and therefore correct. The references to "Eskimo languages," etc. are utterly obsolete.

Mdlayt (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not supported by our article Eskimo, which says that "No universal term other than Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, exists for the Inuit and Yupik peoples." and that it's still standardly used by native peoples in Alaska.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the correct term for the entire language family is Eskimo–Aleut languages. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This family, however, consists of two branches: The Aleut language and the Eskimo languages (hence the name). Apparently, some people classify Aleuts as Eskimos, but that makes no more sense to me than to classify Finns as Hungarians, only because their languages are distantly related. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Besides, this is an article about the myth called "Eskimo words for snow". That is the name under which the myth is known, not "Inuit words for snow". Of course, it could be made more clear in the article itself what the more politically correct terms are. Fedor (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Inuit" (plural) is not a "politically correct" term for "Eskimo" (singular). It simply means something different, just like "the Lakota" doesn't mean the same as "a Sioux" and "Texans" doesn't mean the same as "an American". All Inuit are Eskimos, but not all Eskimos are Inuit. (That said, a term like "Inuit" that essentially means "people" or "humans" is blatantly ethnocentric – not exactly what I'd call "politically correct": with its implication that all non-Inuit are not really people or human it's far more offensive than "Eskimo" from an etymological point of view. Funny enough, "Yupik" is even more explicit as it means "real person/human".) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that this is true of a huge number of languages. Even among European, you get things like Deutsch and Čech coming from "kinsman." Many African, American, Australian, and Oceanic languages use a term referring to "human" to refer to themselves. Gradually they may have become more aware of other groups as equally human, but in the beginning they were "people" and the others were "barbarians." The terms are preserved because it's very difficult to change language (especially cultural identity), plus it makes for an easier way to identify a group of people, rather than finding a term refers to local geography (like Latins), actions (like Russians), or tribal origins (like Englishmen). The damage was done ages ago. Trying to "undo" it would really just do even more damage except possibly if the group uses it as an excuse to regularly commit mass crimes against other groups.

And yes, "Inuit" (not necessarily plural) is a politically correct English term for Eskimos (due to Canadians, who don't have to consider Yu'pik). Consider the fact that the term "politically correct" itself originates from authoritarian governments' efforts to control the people's speech. Thus in the PRC, the Tian'anmen Square massacre has the politically correct term "June 4th Incident", rather than the more fitting "June 4th Massacre," out of political convenience. English politically correct terms are usually made in an attempt to instill consideration, rather than actually being inherently considerate (as they often aren't) -- .Blanket P.I. (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There's a huge difference between the "political correctness" of governmental suppression and an oppressed people not wanting slurs used against them. There's literally no point to bringing up what you just did, except to imply that any form of political correctness is inherently bad. Which it's not, for obvious reasons. -- 9:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119175828/http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/Misc/eskimo-snow-words.html to http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/Misc/eskimo-snow-words.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whorfism

Wolfdog, could you please supply a reference that supports your edit, suggesting that "Whorf is important to this notion"? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• You mean another reference? Sure. Check the page. Wolfdog (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's more solid! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Eskimo is a Slur

I would suggest the term Eskimo be changed from this article. It is a slur for Northern Indigenous/Inuit people and should not be displayed in educational articles other than when speaking of racist terms used. 24.71.229.57 (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

See discussion, above, at Talk:Eskimo words for snow#"Eskimo" is not an acceptable categorization of people", which discussed this question without arriving at a consensus from other editors. I can offer the following:

• The term is a recognized catch phrase about a claim by Frank Boas, for which substituting "Inuit" or other native terms would render unrecognizable. (See for example; 'The Washington Post', "There really are 50 Eskimo words for ‘snow’" and Counting Eskimo words for snow: A citizen's guide.)
• The article is about the claim by Boas, not about actual Inuit terms for snow.
• Alaska Native Language Center suggests that "Alaska Natives increasingly prefer to be known by the names they use in their own languages, such as Inupiaq or Yupik. 'Inuit' is now the current term in Alaska and across the Arctic, and 'Eskimo' is fading from use. The Inuit Circumpolar Council prefers the term 'Inuit' but some other organizations use 'Eskimo'."—thereby suggesting that the term is outdated, but not pejorative.

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have made edits in the lead to clarify that the article is about the catchphrase, not about the peoples, and to clarify the diminished acceptability of the term, "Eskimo". HopsonRoad (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence?

Wolfdog I note that you're trying to get this right, which I find to be a difficult task because it's unclear from the title whether this article is about actual Eskimo words for snow or about the claim/expression. The first sentence should be structured in a way that the main theme echoes the title, reasonably well, in boldface, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Currently, it doesn't. I tried to accomplish this with "The phrase...", which had the unfortunate effect of appearing to be an entry in a lexicon, not about a concept or thing. What can be done to solve this? HopsonRoad (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to address this question, plus make other MOS edits. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)