Talk:Greenlandic Inuit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allencr10. Peer reviewers: Greifaq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allencr10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Information Concerning Origins of Greenlandic Inuit

This article states that the Greenlandic Inuit are descended from the Dorset Culture in part, but [[1]] suggests that the modern Greenlandic Inuit are descended from the much more recent Thule Culture, which arrived in Greenland at around 1100 CE. This needs to be resolved. Astrohoundy (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits I plan to make

Hello Fellow Editors,

I plan to make a few changes to the history section of this article. The changes are the following:

I want to remove some of the information that doesn't have sources, replace them with some up to date cited information or find citations for some of the information. I also plan to remove the paragraph that talks about what the Norse called them because what this does is take away from the history of the Greenlandic Inuit, it changes the focus to what these other people called them vs the history of the ancestors of the modern Greenlandic Inuit. I am hoping to shift the focus back to the Thule as the historical ancestors of the modern Greenlandic Inuit.

I'd be happy to talk more about any of my changes, they won't be going up for a few days, so there is plenty of time to civilly discuss this.

Thank you all Allencr10 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits I did make

Hello Fellow Editors,

I am following up on my previous post about the changes I planned to make and discuss what edits I did make.

I did go through and edited the history section to remove paragraphs that didn't have good citation information. I kept some of the work by previous editors, but I made sure to make the section more credible by adding more citations and information about the Thule. I also shifted the tone to be less Norse centered, in order to give the article more focus for the Inuit and their ancestors.

If there are any issues, please let me know before changes are made, I am happy to discuss!

Allencr10 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Norse arrived first - not indigenous. Inuit migrants arrive centuries later - are indigenous?

It states in the article that Norse settlers arrived centuries before the Thule people, who are the Greenlandic Inuits of today. Despite this, the article also lists the Thule as the indigenous inhabitants of Greenland. This is especially confusing since the first humans - as unrelated to the Norse as the Thule - to set foot on Greenland did so around 4,500 years ago. The last major movement of people into Greenland are those who've been designated indigenous. Are Europeans in Australia indigenous? By this logic, yes.

The definition of 'indigenous' according to the Oxford dictionary is as follows: ​belonging to a particular place rather than coming to it from somewhere else. Synonym: native. 'The indigenous peoples/languages of the area indigenous to…', 'The kangaroo is indigenous to Australia.' Inuit are not the natives of Greenland, the Norse are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:232:110:0:0:1:1 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It was added in recently and I've removed it. They are of course native to Greenland, but I'd like to see a source using the phrase indigenous. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Those Norse who arrived before the Inuit all died out completely because of their total stupidity (they refused to eat fish out of religious reasons). --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That hypothesis is unlikely. They most likely were wiped out and driven out, but I don't think that's too relevant for this article. This article is about Greelandic Inuit, not Norse people. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying the Kalaallit are as distant from the Tuniit as from the Norse settler is absolutely untrue. The Tuniit appear to have been an earlier settlement of peoples from the same reservoir and origin point. See Stone, Anne C. (2019). "The lineages of the first humans to reach northeastern Siberia and the Americas". Nature. 570 (7760): 170–172. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01374-5. ISSN 0028-0836. Ogress 04:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

While Ogress' statement is probably true, that statement alone does not mean that they are indigenous; it simply means that they are related to an indigenous population. For example, modern Lebanese people are more closely genetically related to the indigenous Ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom than Modern Egyptians(Schuenemann 2017, https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694), but that doesn't mean that the modern Lebanese are descendants of the Ancient Egyptians and the Modern Egyptians are not--that would be an extremely fallacious conclusion to draw from the study. It is also true that the modern Danish population is probably not related to the indigenous Norse settlers of Southern Greenland from 940 CE, as the Norse there were largely exterminated in the 15th Century CE, although they could be because some did escape and go back to Iceland and Denmark, as proven by the polar bear symbols on Danish coats of arms. Overall, there could more discussion about this issue in the article, but it is a relatively small part of the article. Yes, the Norse are/were the indigenous people of many Southern parts of Greenland, which were uninhabited before 940 CE but that doesn't necessarily need to be in this article. We could say "an" instead of "the", we could reference the destruction of the Norse settlement, and we could talk about contemporary Greenlandic identity. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Picture removed from infobox

I removed the recently-added picture in the infobox. That particular picture was more decorative than encyclopedic.

An appropriate picture would be one that represent the Greenlandic Intuit people as a whole. For example, if they have an organized structure as a people, a symbol of them as a people would be appropriate. Another possibility is a map showing the areas where they are a significant part of the population. If there is a single recognized historical figure that is both representative of the people and who is most recognized as being representative of this people group rather than for something else, that would work too. I'm sure there are other possibilities as well.

I considered moving the population graph into the infobox but decided against it. The article is about the people, not the population of the people. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 October 2023

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: Split. Consensus to split the article. As to how the split is to be done, it is up to the interested editors here to carry out. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Greenlandic Inuit → Greenlanders – This article is about the nationals of Greenland, which includes ethnicities that are not Greenlandic Inuit. Either this article should be rewritten to be about the Greenlandic Inuit, or the name should change to "Greenlanders" to reflect the current content of this article. I support both options. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The title should reflect the true scope of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Split there should be an article on the Inuit, rename the article, and then split the detail on the Inuit back to this original pagename, leaving a smaller summarization in the various sections of the article. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support this split. – Treetoes023 (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment on further investigation, in a series of edits [2] in 2020 BALMAINM (talk · contribs) changed the topic of this article from Greenlandic Inuit (a Greenland indigine) to Greenlander (a national of Greenland), so the edit history should remain here, as the vast majority of its history is concerning the Inuit and not "Greenlanders". So this should be a simple split for the topic of Greenlander. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I will revert this page to the latest version before BALMAINM's edits if the consensus allows when this discussion is closed. – Treetoes023 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

"colonists"

The article refers to "Danish colonists", but not Inuit "colonists", even though it says the Norse were there before the Inuit. It cannot be said that the Norse were specifically from modern Norway or Denmark.

I have removed the perjorative term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.220.167 (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

"Colonists" is not a pejorative term. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)