Talk:Inuvialuit

Untitled

i'm doing research on eskimos, and the more i learn, the more i realize that i don't know about these people. Gringo300 16:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Population table

Something is wrong with this table. When you add up the numbers, the first part of the table shows that the total population of that village is higher than the numbers in the concensus! If someone could fix this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekristow (talk • contribs) 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the first column is the total population from the 2006 census. The Inuvaluit, First Nations, Métis, Other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal are from the 2001 census. The breakdown for 2006 hasn't been released yet. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the 2006 breakdown been released yet, so that this table be updated? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

add image

Orthographic projection centred over the Inuvialuit communities.

Inuvialiut communities -- unfortunately the political boundaries incorporated in this map predate the cessesion of Nunuvut.

I created some maps. Enjoy! Geo Swan (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I added one of them to Inuvialuit Settlement Region. Rosiestep (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

This sentence seems garbled and I do not know what the writer is trying to convey: "They are descendants of the Thule people; other descendants who inhabit Russia." Can someone clarify?Dankarl (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

sentence was originally added by an anonymous editor in Nov 2004 and has been edited down at least twice. Thule descendants in Russia seems unorthodox.Dankarl (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've changed it now, how does that look. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks goodDankarl (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dankarl: Why unorthodox? The Thule people are generally identified with the prehistoric speakers of Eskimo languages, and Eskimo languages (though not Inuit languages like Inuvialuktun) are spoken in Russia, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding, the Thule people were the progenitors of the Inuit but not of the Yupik. Dankarl (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Inuvialuk people → Inuvialuit
• Inuvialuk language → Inuvialuktun

– In both cases, the proper indigenous term without "people" or "language" have been a regular part of Canadian English for at least since the 1980s.

• • Inuvialuk language/Inuvialuktun

    • Basic search on google "Inuvialktun" excluding wikipedia-related titles is 32,900 hits. For "Inuvaluk language" excluding wikipedia related titles there are only 1,950 hits, many of them bot-generated of one kind or another or just irrelevant completely such as "Translation of Inuvialuk language in Spanish" on babylon.com or "What rhymes with INUVIALUK LANGUAGE?" on rhymes.com or "Lyrics containing the term "Inuvialuk language" on lyrics.com
    • the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has 22 hits for "Inuvialuktun" vs zero hits for "Inuvialuk language"; the same can be expected from the other major Canadian media chains, and certainly from any newspaper serving the Northwest Territories or Yukon. I'll let you guess what the Aboriginal Peoples' Television Network and other aboriginal media use....(apparently their usages of English are for some reason discounted in UE debates, as we have seen in other RMs of the same kind)
    • Google News has for "Inuvialuk language" has one hit - babylon.com's offer to translate the phrase into Spanish and 32,900 results for "Inuvialuktun"
    • Google Scholar has zero hits for "Inuvialuk language" excluding Wikipedia-related items and the same for "Inuvialuktun"
    • Inuvialuktun was moved to the current title on Jan 1, 2011 by Kwami, with no rationale cited.

    Inuvialuk people/Inuvaluit

    • Basic search on google for "Inuvaluit" excluding Wikipedia-related terms has 166,000 hits, "Inuvialuk people" excluding Wikipedia-related items has 971 results, many of them again bot-generated and irrelevant of the same kind as "Inuvialuk language"
    • CBC has has 266 results for "Inuvaluit". They do have 6 results for "Inuvialuk people" but no results as a phrase, rather they speak of someone as an individual Inuvialuk and "people" occurs elsewhere in the linked item.
    • Google News has zero hits for "Inuvialuk people" excluding Wikipedia-related items and 35 hits for "Invialuit" excluding Wikipedia-related items
    • Google Scholar has zero hits for "Inuvialuk people" excluding Wikipedia-related items and 18 results for "Inuvialuit" excluding Wikipedia and including case law
    • Inuvialuit was moved on Jan 1 2011 by Kwami, citing "per language", apparently in reference to his own rewrite/expansion of WP:NCLANG which is in contravention of various other guidelines.
• Both moves pointedly ignore COMMONNAME and also the fact that both Inuvaluit and Inuvliuktun are a part of English, whether mainstream Canadian English or "English as used by aboriginal peoples" (which is still English)...which his invented titles are not, as demonstrated by the above googles, and a scan of any Canadian media site. Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The name Inuvialuit is most common usage in Canada for Western Canadian Inuit people. In own native language: Inuvialuk (sg: one person = one Inuvialuit) Inuvialuuk (dual: two people = two Inuvialuits) Inuvialuit (pl: three or more people = three or more Inuvialuits). But, the usage in English Inuvialuit is not plural (the usage as Inuvialuits not false; also in French: les inuvialuits). Yes, The name Inuvialuktun is most common usage in Canada for Western Canadian Inuit language. --Kmoksy (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "most common usage in Canada" says it all. What you say about +s may be true, but I've never yet heard or seen that (so didn't think to search for it). we never call them "Western Canadian Inuit" though for many years I know that "Inuit" was the only term we heard in the south. "Inuvialuk people" also means "people who are Inuvialuk/uuk/uit" and, given the diversity of this group in various communities/sub-identities, the singular form was never a good idea; as if the singular one were citable, which it's not.Skookum1 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This people/language is different from Eastern Canadian Inuit people (Inuit proper or simply Inuit) and language (Inuktitut). The popular usage in Canada of the name Inuit for all Eskimo-Aleut-speaking peoples of Canada (only Inuit sub-branch of Eskimo lived in Canada; but, Yupik sub-branch of Eskimo not lived in Canada). The usage of Western and Eastern Canadian Inuit is outside Canada. --Kmoksy (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We do make the distinction between Inuvialuit and Inuit now, though as noted not twenty-thirty year ago. And I meant to add a rider in the points above that "outside Canada" citations are not of value, as CANENGL applies here (Canadian terms on Canadian articles). This gets ignored and derided a lot, and feels more than a bit like imposed colonialism "from outside",but CANENGL is very valid; what's in academic English in other countries is not relevant and what is used in common (not just academic) English also devolves on "English as used in Canada", not how it's used in wherever else... said colonialism is not just in cases like these, but I'll leave that for now.Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I searched for "Inuvialuuk" and got no hits from any English language website. In fact I only got one hit (the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre) that was in any way associated with the Inuvialuit. The other hits were mainly other language Wikipeidias and mirrors. I also looked up "inuvialuits" and went through the first 100 results. There were 12 uses of "inuvialuits" on pages in English while the other 88 were in French. The only one that was anywhere close to being a reliable source was Encyclopedia of American Indian History. The others were, The Oil Daily, 'On The Land' in the High Arctic, Rewarding Final Passage, Northern Exposure, The Porcupine River, also The Porcupine River, American Indian Heritage Month: Commemoration vs. Exploitation, Travel Yukon, Pintrest, Bebo and this. The last I'm surprised at. The kids should have got it right. The "s" in French is used by the Canadian government, see Across Time and Tundra: The Inuvialuit of the Canadian Arctic and Empreintes dans la neige - Les Inuvialuits de l'Arctique canadien. This follows the style of Correct use of Inuit and Inuk. Of course none of this has much to do with moving the article to the correct title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the research provided by User:Skookum1 above. Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names ("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."), which is a policy, should apply here and is currently ignored by having the two articles at names that, as per the above, violate another policy, Wikipedia:No original research. On top of that there are two guidelines that also support the moving of the two articles to undisambiguated names. The first is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages), which in the opening states "Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this." Inuvialuktun is a redirect to Inuvialuk language and is the primary topic for the title, it's the only topic for the title, which indicates a move is the correct choice. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) says "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title." which is what Inuvaluit is and once again Inuvialuk people is OR.

The idea that there can be no discussion unless at a central location to cover all languages and people is not necessary as there are already policies and guidelines to cover this. Also there has been opposition on Wikipedia to bulk nominations. It is quite obvious that some people and languages share, along with other possible targets, a common name that the only way to deal with them is to have them at "foo language" and "foo people". English is one of these that comes to mind. In this case the language and people use different names. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant that there should be a central discussion on changing the guidelines, rather than a hundred moves intended as exceptions to the guidelines. Moves following the guidelines do not of course need to be centralized. This may be one of those, but Skookum made literally a hundred RMs, many of them apparently intended to establish his repeatedly-rejected POV as consensus against the existing guidelines. That should be discussed on the guideline talk page.

You made thousands of unnecessary, undiscussed moves that violated guidelines already extant, and have fought tooth and nail to prevent reversion of any kind, whether on needless and often confusing "people" additions or your moving indigenous titles to "white" ones without any regard for any of the implications or consequences; on hundreds, probably thousands of articles all you did was change the title and not even fix the lede or the content; letting others pick up after your mess then pulling out all the guns when anyone challenges you. YOU didn't have a centralized discussion of the changes you made to NCL - oh, sure on that guideline's talkpage, but your judgments there about what is required for ethnic groups articles was on a languages agenda only. These RMs are required to revert your - how many was it? 1000? 2000? 3000? article titles without talking to any country-wikigroups, IPNA, IPOz or anyone else; just you and your pals, who come out shooting alongside you when the validity of their pet guideline is questioned, even though it's in clear conflict with another. Attacking me, as before in the RMs and as here, is just a tactic to avoid addressing the issues raised by the other guidelines that conflict with yours; it's an old refrain and boring. The guidelines you say need to have a centralized discussion already exist, you just refuse to acknowledge them and can't seem to come to terms that what you added to NCL is seriously flawed. YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again; NCL doesn't run Wikipedia, though it sure has rum amuck in it. Skookum1 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be right on your other points, but you got one thing backwards (assuming I interpreted you correctly): The question is not whether an article is the primary topic for a title, but whether the title is the primary name for the topic. Otherwise "American" would be changed to "Usonian". (Which actually I wouldn't mind, but it's not going to happen.) — kwami (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Denesuline" is the primary name for the topic, and the modern name, Chipewyan is no longer in use in the country these people live in. By your endless ill-logic and obsession with volumes of usage in dated ethnographic sources, published in foreign countries in distant universities, and papers based on them by "specialists in the field" out the ying-yang, Laich-kwil-tach would be moved back to the 19th Century Euclataws, the 'Namgis would be the Nimpkish, the Heiltsuk would be Bella Bella; geez you even maintained Kwakiutl was preferable to Kwakwaka'wakw. Inuvaluit is the correct title for this article, and "Inuvaliuk people" is rank ORIGINALRESEARCH as googles have shown. But instead you admit you were wrong, you attack the proponent and now call for the centralized discussion you NOW say you want to have, after acting alone and resisting any effort to move them back; you lost at St'at'imc, Ktunaxa, Nlaka'pamux, Secwepemc and by rights you should lose here; Canadian governments (municipal, federal, provincial, regional districts and counties and bands and tribal councils and NGOs and universities, companies, all use these terms in everyday English now. The claim that we(as I am not alone) are trying to push these words into the language, to cause change in the language, is rubbish; these are already very real parts of English. You are living in the past by insisting the anglicized forms should remain; they are semi-official in Canada and now widespread as other Canadians have averred here. Somewhere in one of teh guidelines that already exist but you don't want to acknowledge it says if there's an official change to a name (which would include the government broadcaster's usage and university style guides and, gee, elementary school curricula too), then sources from after the date of that change are to be weighted more than those from before. That applies here very strongly, but instead of saying "OK I was wrong in creating an original research title without discussing it with anybody" you're now going for my throat again (just like last year's RMs) and calling for a centralized discussion; just a procedural delaying tactic, as are your endless personal attacks against me ("not rational" etc). I'm the rational one who knows my country and the way we use English here, and I hear back "we can't take Skookum1's word for it". Because you don't want to. People in the RMs of last year listened, and heard, and took the correct action. Now you're doing the same again, fighting tooth and nail by any means necessary to protect titles you illegitimately created.Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That the rest of the world, and your neck of the academic woods, hasn't caught up yet, or isn't aware (and doesn't want to be aware, it seems) of the ethnocultural realities and modern polity as to why these names are now in English, is its problem, and yours. You are imposing the past, and foreign versions of English usage, to change Canadian titles that look arcane and out-of-date in modern Canada. This was all gone over in the RMs of last year, and the evidence produced for this, and those went against your insistence on what you wanted, to the point of being obnoxious and as many pointed out, deliberately WP:BAITing me so I would "lose". What's losing here is Wikipedia's integrity in the modern world, and you're part of the reason. Youy lost in one-by-one RMs, and so now you want a convergence of guidelines....and how long will that take?? All for you to try to prevent what more than one Canadian editor, and many pieces of evidence on last year's RMs (and gee, you didn't want a centralized discussion then, did you?)Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.