Talk:Eskimo archery

Rename

As the Eskimo article notes, "Eskimo" is considered unacceptable by modern-day Inuit people. Since all the sources seem to point to Inuit traditions, this article's name is outdated and potentially offensive. There's also an issue with tenses: the article should be corrected to reflect the fact that Inuit people and their archery traditions are not a thing of the past.Vizjim (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2021

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: no consensus. Those in support of a move largely want it moved because the term "Eskimo" is considered offensive and derogatory. However, those opposing a move note that a majority of the reliable sources still use the term, and argue that Wikipedia should continue to follow what the reliable sources. Opinions are split just about evenly, and as such I cannot find a consensus for a move at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Eskimo archery → Inuit archery – Eskimo is generally seen as an offensive term in the US and Canada, though other circumpolar peoples vary in their opinions. However, this article deals exclusively with Canadian and US sources, so it should be more accurately titled Vizjim (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom—blindlynx (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose -I know many Alaskan Inupiat people that don't find the term offensive and even refer to themselves as Eskimo. It's also used in many tribal/organizational names among the Yup'ik. The sources refer to it as Eskimo and I think we should stick to our sources. It may be less popular in Canada and even in some communities further north but not everyone shares the same opinion. If sources are found to the contrary and it is referred to as Inuit in those sources then we may have a case for adding it or even, where it might outweigh the other we could consider replacing titles. We should not dismiss the term altogether so long as there are those who identify as such in one way or another. However, the overwhelming argument to keep it is that it is found in the sources and Wikipedia should not be the place to push cultural changes but allow our sources to alter or change them as society does. Wikipedia is a tertiary source meaning it is slow to change and with good reason. I say follow the sources. The past tense usage in the article is an issue when discussing a living culture.--ARoseWolf 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:ARoseWolf. See WP:RGW. 162 etc. (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:ARoseWolf - the relevant reliable sources say "Eskimo" and as far as I can see do so without any derogatory intent. I'd stick to them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per ARoseWolf and Richard. Wikipedia follows (reliable sources) rather than leading. Colin M (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support: the term is now considered offensive in Canada. In fact our local football club recently changed its name from Edmonton Eskimos to Edmonton Elks for that very reason. “Nobody uses Eskimo in Canada anymore – at all,” says Niigaan Sinclair, head of the native studies department at the University of Manitoba.— Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

We understand the term is considered offensive in Canada. It's been brought out and I definitely would use caution when referring to any Inuit, Inupiaq or Yupik person as Eskimo though, in Alaska, there are many who still use it and don't find it offensive. With all due respect, the University of Manitoba doesn't speak for everyone. This form of archery is and has been used by both the Inupiaq and Yupik peoples and referring to the Yupik as Inuit would be wrong in my opinion. The Yupik people are not Inuit people. They are Yupik. --ARoseWolf 15:29, 22 November 2021 (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.

Revert

Comment originally placed at User talk:Richard Keatinge:

May I ask why you reverted this edit of Eskimo archery? I think it should be obvious that this was an improvement (e.g., to link the first use of the term "bowyer" instead of the second one, and to not start that word and the word "cable" with an uppercase letter, to avoid assuming that bowyers must be male, and to change "jell" to "gel" as the more typical word choice). I wonder whether you realized that you were reverting two edits instead of one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BarrelProof, your edits were bold but they were reverted. According to WP:BRD, you shouldn't assume anything and you should come to this talk page to discuss your desired changes. Reverting again is disruptive and may constitute edit-warring as it does not fall under any exclusions in the stated policy above. I haven't reverted your edits because that would only serve to further the edit war, which in itself is disruptive, however, they should be deemed invalid until discussion is had and the community reaches consensus no matter how you may feel about your edits. --ARoseWolf 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is just the start of discussion but from what I can tell @BarrelProof's desired edits are as follows:

(1). Remove Eskimo Bowyers from paragraph two under section "Bows" and replace it with a link to Esquimo bowyers in the first sentence of the same section.

(2). Change the uppercase C in Cable-backed bow and replace it with the lowercase c

(3). Removing when he wraps cables around the bow and replace it with made by wrapping cables around the bow that are.

(4). Change the word "jells" in the final sentence of the second paragraph with "gels".

Note: Sometimes edits get inadvertently caught up in reversions and Richard can attest to whether this is the case. I don't think that excuses one from following BRD. For the record, I don't see the issue and can see merit in the edits of @BarrelProof. For me it looks like an improvement. --ARoseWolf 21:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies to BarrelProof and ARoseWolf, indeed I reverted two edits instead of the intended one. Not that the current version is perfect, but I feel it's better with the additional information, which can indeed be reworked into good encyclopedic prose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking another look at it @Richard Keatinge. I agree the article can be improved but the current wording is an improvement. --ARoseWolf 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The main problem with the revert by Richard Keatinge is not that he accidentally undid some minor edits by BarrelProof, but that he restored the unacceptably large quotations that I had removed under our non-free content policy (I had previously tagged the page for this problem, thinking that someone would quickly take care of it, but no such luck). That policy reads (in part): "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. The quotes in this page could easily and without any loss of meaning be rewritten in plain encyclopaedic English; there is no reason to quote any of this content. Richard Keatinge, would you kindly undo your revert, or explain how you think these quotations are acceptable under policy? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. At this edit I have boldly attempted to turn this article into acceptable encyclopedic prose. I have removed what I would consider to be over-quotation and I have removed the tag, though a couple of passages from the 1897 article by Murdoch remain. I look forward to your various responses. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A source dated 1897 is in the public domain, but the quotations that remain in the article are 368 words in a 706-word article. Over half the prose is quotations. That's excessive, especially in light of the fact that the source is so dated, and the article relies so heavily on this one source.

Another point: The article uses past tense throughout. Why is that? Are Inuit people no longer practicing archery? — Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Past tense and an 1897 source - I have no information about any Inuit person who is currently practicing any form of archery, let alone making cable-backed bows, does anyone else know anything? I would imagine that rifles were adopted instead as soon as they became available, so any records of the previous weapons would have to have been written in a rather short time period.

It seems convenient to use an 1897 source that says relevant things about different types of arrow in quite good prose, so I personally wouldn't think of this as overquotation, nor would I personally want to rewrite it. I would feel that at best I'd be adding nothing and at worst garbling what we have. Maybe you can do better than I can... Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It's so easy to say it needs to be rewritten and then remove the information and then move on to another article and forget about this one. Bows are still used today and some even do so as their ancestors did though rifles and compound bows have made their way into the hunting techniques for obvious reasons. Regardless, the Inuit peoples are still alive as is their culture so utilizing past tense is not proper in my opinion. --ARoseWolf 15:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be fussy, even one Eskimo / Inuit person making and using a traditional cable-backed bow in the last ten years would allow us to use the present tense for these activities. I have seen no evidence of anything of the sort. At http://northernwildernesskills.blogspot.com/2012/03/replicating-eskimo-bow-technology-is.html I find "Dr. Errett Callahan is an renowned anthropologist/primitive technology specialist. In the late 1980s he was engaged in a project to teach the Inuit of Belcher Island traditional skills such as arctic bow making. Callahan's assignment was to recreate a bow similar to what had been used during the heyday of Arctic bow hunting and to later use the recreated bow in a actual caribou hunt. The project was published in three different articles in Primitive Technology II, Ancestral Skills 2001." Would anyone think that good enough to use the present tense? Or is this element of material culture best described in the past tense? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge and avoid naming difficulty

We now have articles including Cable-backed bow and this one, Eskimo archery. There is a lot of obvious overlap, and I wonder about merging them into Cable-backed bow. This would get rid of the offensive-to-some word Eskimo, which would be a redirect as would Inuit archery. Does anyone have any thoughts on this idea? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the term "Inuit", which is the only alternative proposed by anyone and the only term used in the cable-backed bow article, doesn't describe the other tribal entities (Yupik and Aleut) that utilized the cable-backed bow technology. To call all of these tribes "Inuit" would be a grave disservice and improper of Wikipedia. Unless you want to distinguish them all in a merged article, which the term "Eskimo" represents, then I say no. There is also the issue of sourcing a new article with whatever term(s) is agreed to describe each or all tribal entities. If a draft can be written for everyone to evaluate and agree to beforehand then I think that would be agreeable barring any further objections. Needless to say, I think it has merit but I would want to see a draft in writing or have clear discussions on one before lending my support !vote for a merge. --ARoseWolf 21:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reasonable proposition: we might as well suggest merging our article on big-game hunting into our page on Purdey & Sons over-and-under 16-bore shotgun (OK, it seems we don't yet have that page). Why would we merge a page on a broad topic into one on one single type of weapon? The reverse might perhaps be worth proposing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)