Talk:Inuit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.234.2 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements made with non-supportive material (Referenced article does not agree with statements made)

I do not edit wikipedia articles, so I do not know the proper way to address this, but upon reading into one of the references for some statements in this article I found some large errors that I felt the need to point out. Thank you & I apologize if I haven't used the proper editing techniques.

Under Diet one article is referenced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC325106) in relation to these statements: "More recent studies, however, have indicated that the concept that heart attacks were rare among the Inuit appears to be a myth, including findings of frozen Inuit mummies showing signs of atherosclerosis.[100] Modern population studies have shown that Inuit share similar rates of heart attacks as the rest of the world, and nearly twice the risk of strokes.[100]"

Having just read the article myself in reference to the Inuit bodies studied, I believe the conclusions stated here are not supported by the reference article.

The first statement made is that the study shows that "the concept that heart attacks were rare among the Inuit is a myth" is not found in the article. In fact, the article indicates no findings of myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) among the Inuit preserved bodies that were studied. They say about one body, "There was no evidence of myocardial infarction, acute or healed. The well-preserved valves and chambers were normal (pg 253.") Two other bodies studied died from trauma, one with a heart free of disease and another with heart issues but also signs of early childhood illness. Another thought to have died from pneumonia, etc. None were determined to have died from myocardial infarction/heart attack. At the end of its discussion on Egyptian mummies it states, "The study indicated that the diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction is probably not possible in a mummified body," going on to say that the most they can say based on evidence in mummified bodies is possible death as a result of atherosclerotic heart disease(pg 256.) Therefore, the concept that heart attacks were rare (not impossible or unheard of, but simply rare) could indeed be true. There are also not enough bodies to study to make a statistically significant statement about ancient Inuit, which the article also mentions the lack of bodies to study.

The article also says that "The Eskimo [sic] diet was almost entirely meat, as attested to by their severe osteoporosis, while the Egyptian diet contained meat only at occasional festival times; yet the findings of atherosclerosis in both group suggests that diet alone may not be a critical factor (pg 256.") So while the article found evidence of atherosclerosis in some of the Inuit bodies, it also indicates that this may not be the result of diet alone, therefore to put it under the diet category seems to be against the articles findings.

The same article is referenced in the second statement yet nowhere in the article does it discuss modern Inuit rates of heart attacks or strokes. The only reference to the health of modern day Inuit is in reference to lung cancer from smoking cigarettes introduced after WWII affecting modern Inuit women and osteoporosis (from a high-protein diet causing metabolic acidosis and thus calcium loss.)

I believe the statements to be using this article as evidence for their points when the article does not substantiate any of the points mentioned apart from that some frozen mummies did show signs of atherosclerosis.

You are correct. This is pretty clearly another one of those cases where one or two articles are published about Inuit people claiming something to be apocryphal and it is later found that the articles themselves (1993 is *not* recent!) are in fact apocryphal. See, for example this 2017 work: https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000673#ref-1

I'm removing the improperly sourced information from the article per your suggestion.

Fatbatsat (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV challenge: Genocide by Canada in the 20th and 21st centuries Sub-section

It looks like someone created the title of this sub-section from the viewpoint of a single source within that sub-section, and a questionable and confusing usage of the word "genocide" is revealed. Fatbatsat (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's the UN definition of genocide. Forcibly moving Inuit into settlements and removing Inuit children (such as happened in the Sixties Scoop) fall under the definition of genocide. Yuchitown (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Data

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-dna-reveals-complex-story-human-migration-between-siberia-and-north-america-180972356/