Talk:Canada Voyage Tips and guide

There is a project to improve articles about Canada – see the Canada Expedition page.

I noticed that whenever I looked up bus schedules on the Coach Canada website, I was always redirected to the Megabus website. Staff at the Toronto Coach Terminal explained that Megabus had acquired Coach Canada and was rebranding all its Coach Canada buses as Megabus. Many Coach Canada buses have been repainted to show "MEGABUS" in giant letters on the side of the bus, but retaining the Coach Canada logo and name in small letters near the bus door. Many Coach Canada buses are still in their original colours. Thus, I am going gradually rename all "Coach Canada" entries to "Megabus (Coach Canada)" using only the Megabus url. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article currently quotes: "DHS issued cards for the Mexican Border (SENTRI) and for international air travellers (Global Entry) cannot be used to enter Canada, but they are acceptable to re-enter the United States and may be used in the dedicated NEXUS lanes into the US, where available."

I was under the impression that the Global Entry Card, as a valid Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative document, could be used to enter Canada, albeit in the normal entry lanes, not the expedited ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Initiative It definitely is a valid WHTI doc, and Canada participates in that program, which makes this document effectively similar to an enhanced driver's license. Does anyone have any more information on this? --PapaMichael (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Below is a proposed infobox to let readers know which formatting conventions to use in Wikivoyage articles about Canada. @AndreCarrotflower: Ground Zero (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Moved to the top of this page. Ground Zero (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unlike in the Netherlands, you can't do pot in a bar, so it's not really part of nightlife. You have to buy the stuff in a store and then smoke or vape it at home (not a hotel, so tough for tourists) or outdoors away from other people. So should this go under "drink" at all? Kevlar67 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing it under "Drink", but since it's legal to use, it clearly doesn't belong in an "Illicit drug use" subsection. Where would you like to put it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would put it under "Cannabis and illicit drugs" as most readers still associate it with other drugs. CBD drinks are not available yet, as far as I know, so it's still about smoking, vaping and eating it. Even when the drinks become available, I dont think they'll be in bars. Ground Zero (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with that subheading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Put it under Do. I doubt a subheading is needed; if it is, use "Cannabis" alone. Pashley (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

1. I've completely gutted the "other destinations" and replaced it (slowly over the last month or two) with one example that is the most famous archetypical attraction for each major natural region of the countriy (note, I said "natural region" not Wikivoyage region). Please comment in general on this change. 2. This has lead to Dawson City being added as the most famous example of a northern Canadian town. Therefore I propose deleting Whitehorse from the list of cities. 3. And while we're at it, what is Winnipeg doing here? There was literally a commercial on TV for years where the joke was that going to Winnipeg by accident is the worst mistake a traveler could make! On a more serious note, do we really think that it draws more international visitors than Edmonton, St. Catherines or Victoria? Not likely! Do we have stats? Kevlar67 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Winnipeg belongs here. w:List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada has it as the country's 7th largest urban area but I've seen lists that have 4th. It certainly gets some international visitors, though mostly just passing through. I'm a Canadian who has travelled some; I've been to W more often than E or (unfortunately) V & I've never visited St C.Pashley (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Just in time for Canada Day, Wikivoyage has a completely usable travel guide to the Great White North. All 942 articles about Canada are now are at usable level or above, including district, city, park, region, dive, airport, itinerary and topic articles. There are no annoying outline articles or useless stubs. While there may not be much travelling going on now, you should start planning your trip here. (Canada Day, July 1, celebrates the day in 1867 when three British colonies formed a self-governing dominion, and marks the beginning of modern Canada.) Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wow! That’s awesome! I’ve been contributing to Florida articles, mostly on MOS, and it’s made me realize how much work it takes to improve a region or country’s articles. I see you’ve been improving region articles as well, a difficult task. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

How many region/countries has all of its subarticles at usable level or above? What about region/countries that has all of its subarticles at guide level or above? And Canada should be a guide, according to the country status page. SmileKat40 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think that’s GZ’s goal. Take a look at WV:Article status stats. It’s rare for a region to have guide status, so that would take far more local knowledge than what any of us presumably have. I think we should be grateful for his contributions rather than disappointed they haven’t had enough impact. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discuss Talk:Canada#Is this a guide-level article? and would like input from others before upgrading it. Ground Zero (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

So you've upgraded all the district, city, park, region, dive, airport, itinerary and topic articles breadcrumbed under the second-biggest country on Earth, eh? Pfft, big deal.

Happy Canada Eve.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

😄 Building Canada wasn't a solo project. Lots of others have contributed to the 942 articles. I just put the puck in the net. Ground Zero (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The pass by Messier...AND HE SCORES!!!!!!!!! Congratulations! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nice job. Also suitable that Hamilton went on the Main Page today as DotM. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ground Zero, how many years have you been working on this? I remember you announcing that the parks were all usable, and that was some time ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I started upgrading outline city and park article in January 2018, and then moved to region, itinerary and topic articles articles later. Of course, there were already many articles at the usable level. I haven't done much with those. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here are the requirements for a country article to be promoted from "usable" to "guide":

1. Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better),
2. a valid regional structure, and
3. well developed prose in all the standard sections.
4. All immediate subregions must be usable status or better.
5. Layout closely matches the manual of style.
6. All important ways to get in should be detailed, along with some suggestions for where to go next, and thorough information on getting around.
7. At least 2–3 good-quality photos accompany the article; preferably showing famous or important attractions.
8. Should have a custom page-banner.

I think this article meets all criteria. If you disagree, what is it missing? Ground Zero (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It looks great! My only area of doubt is point 6, as I notice the "Get around" section has no "By boat" subsection. Should it have one? If not, I think the article is ready for promotion to guide status. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Getting around by boat has been added. Ground Zero (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great job. Getting 942 articles to Usable status is a lot (like seriously, a lot) of work. Canada should definitely be upgraded to Guide. SmileKat40 (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

	The Wikivoyage Eager Beaver* Award For Dam Good Teamwork
	To everyone who contributed to making Canada usable (and possibly a guide), I award this homemade barn-beaver.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply *Product does not contain real beavers.

• Thank you and merci bien! Ground Zero (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Canada Opens World’s Longest Hiking Trail From Coast to Coast Pashley (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Trans Canada Trail Ground Zero (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Another COVID-19 victim. Greyhound announced today that it will close all its Canadian bus routes. If you come across any Canadian articles that mention Greyhound (with the exception of 5 routes that originate from the US), please remove them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I had a look around, and I didn't see any obvious ones left. Thanks for this note, so we can keep an eye out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's not good. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Other carriers are stepping into the breach, and Maritime Bus, a regional carrier, is planning to set up a national network of regional carriers for coordinated schedules and joint ticketing. Things will sort themselves out. Ground Zero (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

What does that different greenish colour mean (is it the same as all the rest of the countries listed in green?)? I'm a little confused on what that means. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Brazil is not on the visa free list, but the linked page says "some" Brazilian can get an eTA, which is required also for the visa free travellers if coming in by plane, if I understand our article correctly. Details should be on this page, but my Portuguese is not good enough for me to wade through it – or, there was this link, explaining it in English (Bulgaria and Romania have since got visa free status). –LPfi (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I recently created this article after reading UNESCO's tentative list, but I am not sure where should it be breadcrumbed. It is politically a part of Nunavut, but it is much closer to Nunavik in Quebec and it looks like from a travellers perspective, it is a part of Nunavik, not Nunavut, and so I'm quite puzzled on where to breadcrumb it. Any thoughts? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'd put it in Nunavut, but add it to Nunavik#Go next (and in Go next of places from where you'd get a boat ride) and mention its relation to Nunavik in Get in (and probably Understand, depending on cultural ties). I suppose there are many small places that are more easily reached across an administrative border, but putting the border elsewhere in our hierarchy can be convoluted, and mostly I think this is the way to handle it. —The preceding comment was added by LPfi (talk • contribs)

I agree with Ikan LPfi. Pashley (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You mean you agree with LPfi. I haven't expressed an opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so I'll leave it under Nunavut for the time being. @Ground Zero:, any thoughts as to where to breadcrumb it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with LPfi. Otherwise, that would be like putting Kaliningrad Oblast under Lithuania because of easier access, although Nunavut and Nunavik aren't seperated by an international border. (I know we have microstates in Europe breadcrumbed under the countries that enclave them, but I've never found that an elegant solution.) Vidimian (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Niagara Falls Storm.jpg
• Prairie Rainbow Canola Flax.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

A photographer used a non-standard licence that has since been deleted, and therefore many of their photographs are licence-less. However, these two have standard licences, and deleting them would be only to satisfy a user discontent with Commons, which usually isn't a valid reason for deletion. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The time zone map currently used, if I'm not mistaken, contains a few issues. First, New Brunswick is labeled as Nova Scotia. In terms of timezones, it overlooks many oddities across Canada. The most noticeable is Labrador, which should be in the Atlantic timezone. It's also a bit more complicated in the Kootenays region. This map also doesn't help to explain the places that don't change in the summer (Yukon and Saskatchewan, parts of Northern Ontario, and North Shore Quebec).

This newer map looks accurate, but it's not really legible until you click through to the full size. I'm also curious whether showing summer and winter zones together on one map is clear for the traveller perspective. Alternatively, OSM and Wikidata seem to have the zones covered, even with the local oddities (e.g. [1]https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6446108), so maybe it's not that hard to make our own static or interactive map.

I suppose the easiest alternative could be to keep the time zone coverage here on Canada simple, and point out the local anomalies at the regional or provincial level. Saskatchewan#Time_zones already does a good job; Northern Ontario could probably use some work.

So my question is, should we swap out the current map for a more complicated but more accurate one? And then, is it worth looking at how we handle time zones in the next level down the hierarchy? Gregsmi11 (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I remember seeing a similar issue on Australia#Time a few years back. It's been a while since I managed to come up with a solution to it, but I would suggest keeping it simple, and then later explaining the local anomalies in another paragraph. A table could also help. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here are some choices from Wikimedia Commons:

Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Like User:Ikan Kekek, I question whether the article needs a list of airlines. It feels encyclopedic to me to have a general description of each airline, even after I've deleted the description of each airline's fleet, and the descriptions of airlines that ordinary travellers can't use. Ground Zero (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apart from major airlines (and some regional ones like Air Nunavut), I don't see the need to include every single minute piece of detail about every Canadian airline. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now that the list has become even longer, I think it is time to remove it, unless there are any objections in the next day or two. Ground Zero (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've left a paragraph with the principal airlines, but if that starts turning into an encyclopedic list again, we should probably delete the whole section. Ground Zero (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That sounds sensible to me. Thanks for taking care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There have been problems like Canadians stranded in other countries by flight delays. Should we be warning people to avoid Sunwing? Or Westjet which recently screwed up some flights for friends of mine? Others? Pashley (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Such warnings seem like core material for a travel site. I'd say add them right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any airline may have problems with individual flights, but the story seems to indicate something much more serious. Sadly, the story gives no background information. Is the airline getting bankrupt or what is this about? Aren't there standard procedures for handling airlines leaving you stranded? –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think adding anecdotal evidence from friends is not a good idea. Every airline screws up some flights. If we have safety or service ratings from a reliable source, we should add that. My Westjet flight last week was fine. Sunwing didn't put my cousins' luggage on their flight, but then British Airways did the same thing to them. Do we want lists of these incidents in country articles? I don't think so. Ground Zero (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that anecdotes are not enough to justify a warning, but the Sunwings problem appears to go far beyond that. I certainly would not fly with them myself & am inclined to add a warning, but the story is months old & I've no idea of the current situation. Pashley (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

A few months after that mess they were bought by Westjet. Perhaps that has fixed the problem? Pashley (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't fly Sunwing either, but I think we need some sort of report to refer to, not just my cousins' story and your friends' story, or even the CBC artivle from last December. As you note, they may have fixed the problems. I know people who refuse to fly Air Canada because of past problems. Ground Zero (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

These sections are getting very long. Should we start trimming them? As Wikivoyage:Country article template advises, "The country's history in a nutshell. When in doubt about including a date or event, ask yourself: Is it relevant to the average traveller?". Ground Zero (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should we revert to Special:PermaLink/4671863, which is more readable and looks less like a Wikipedia article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Should we include a warning about the ongoing Canadian wildfires? It looks like they are pretty serious, considering that the smog has now spread into the American Midwest, so this might be a health hazard for people with respiratory issues. Trust me, it's bad. You can actually smell the smoke here. The dog2 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The situation changes daily. The smoke will come to a place for a day or two and then leave. I don't think we can keep up with the changes. This makes me think of the many warnings that we have for incidents that are long since past. The warnings are added, and never removed. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having lived through the 2019 East Coast Australian bushfires, have to agree – the smoke isn't the prime concern, it's the bushfire itself. It makes sense to have a general warning (perhaps in a cautionbox) directing users to the relevant provincial government websites, but that's about all we need to do. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The wildfires reach Finnish news only occasionally, but my impression is that there have been very large wildfires in California in most years lately, and in Canada at least this year (and 2016). How do they affect a traveller? Is the risk only local, well advertised and easy to avoid once you are there, or is it something you need to take into account when planning your voyage and stay alert about? Should we put up state/province- or countrywide warning boxes or are the fires something to handle in Stay safe (which now has no mention in e.g. Canada or Alberta)? –LPfi (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would probably be better in the Stay Safe section, rather than at the top of the article, since the effects are local and transitory. (I'm at a cottage north of Toronto today, and considering going home because once the smoke comes in, I won't want to be outdoors. It's real, but it's not everywhere.) Ground Zero (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The increasing prevalence and ferocity of wildfires and the smoke from them is a product of global warming. Maybe there's a place where we can post statements about all the types of disasters that are going to make travel increasingly difficult. Stay safe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do think it's warranted to warn people with respiratory issues to reconsider travel to the areas affected by the haze. I'm just not sure where we should stick that warning. For me, it's only an annoyance since I can smell the smoke, but it could be dangerous for people with respiratory diseases like asthma. When I was still living in Singapore, we often had haze caused by Indonesian farmers burning down the forest to clear land for agriculture (though my family back home have told me that it's become less common since Jokowi took office), and there were often warnings from the government for people with respiratory diseases to wear a mask and stay indoors. The dog2 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think there is more value in permanent guide content that helps to plan a trip in the face of potential wildfire (and other increasingly common disasters as @Ikan Kekek mentioned). Things to know before a trip... for example what should I be thinking about when I'm making plans months in advance? The day before I leave? On the road?

If it's not a timely advisory, there's a question of where to stick it; "Stay Safe" feels like a section I'll focus on once I've booked a trip and feel like worrying about something. Once we inevitably deal with other disasters, some will feel weather related. Do ice storms and heat waves go into climate? What if we had an "Understand>Seasonal Risks" subsection (or something that sounds less ominous) for destination articles that briefly explains the local situation, but mostly links to national or regional "Stay Safe" sections where the details for preparation and safety go into more detail? We don't need to explain the BC wildfire website on every last town in BC, but we can be a bit more specific on what the risks are locally. For example, Vancouver may experience only smoke, but more remote towns will have fire bans, driving restrictions, and issue evacuation orders. Gregsmi11 (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just in case it wasn't fully clear, I was suggesting covering this information in the Stay safe article, rather than individual articles' "Stay safe" sections. The Stay safe article is that permanent guide content you are suggesting we have, though it might bear updating or expanding. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

If we're worried about the wildfires/their smoke, but don't want to constantly be updating individual cities' warning boxes, couldn't we just put temporary warning boxes on the Canada, United States, and North America pages, since those are general (that way we wouldn't have to edit specific cities/regions but could still put a warning out about them)? We could say something like "Heavy smoke from wildfires in northern Canada periodically comes down to [insert place] and can cause or worsen existing respiratory issues. Travelers who might be sensitive to air particulates should be prepared in case this smoke is in the city/cities you're traveling to". Tuyuhun (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, warning boxes on individual cities cannot be properly maintained. The question is whether wildfires are common enough that we just have to tell where to check before going and while in a possibly affected area (like we do for tornados), or if we want to maintain a more or less updated warning at the country level (a cautionbox telling what areas are affected this year). In countries where widespread wildfires are reasonably rare (as in Sweden), a warningbox may be warranted when they occur. Here in Finland wildfires are a problem, but they are extinguished in hours or days, so general warnings about cigarette buts etc. suffice. LPfi (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

What about an article called Travel in the anthropocene‌ or something like that? And maybe also Evacuation orders and travel for covering how to deal if your town/city/accomodation is evacuated - due to any disaster or even due to a bomb being defused (this is a rather regular occurrence, for example, in Germany, probably even more so in Yugoslavian countries etc.)?

I wouldn't support the title "Travel in the Anthropocene," because it's rather obscure, but dealing with evacuation is definitely on-topic and important. I'd say, cover that in the Stay safe article, and then if the section gets too big, spin it off as a new article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I just thought of a title. What do you think would be a better title? Climate change and travel? Or just Climate change maybe? Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but we'd have to decide what to focus on. One topic is how to minimize your carbon footprint, which is covered in Responsible travel. Another is how to deal with dangers like increasing temperatures, which is dealt with in Stay safe or Stay healthy, I'm not sure which. This probably requires more thought, but I need a nap now. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No panic, it's not an urgent issue. However, we should jointly tackle it. Pm147-Sm152 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The dog2 shortened

"Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is considered to be offensive in Canada and should never be used there (though it is still the usual term in Alaska)."

into

"Historically they were known as "Eskimos", but this term is today considered to be racist slur and should never be used."

I think one should keep a mention of the common terminology aspect in some form. As a visitor to Canada, you should of course avoid the word, but the wording suggests it is thought of as racist slur also elsewhere, which seems not to be true in neighbouring USA. First reading this article and then visiting Alaska could make you quite confused, or make you misinterpret the mindset of people you meet there (and that of local institutions).

–LPfi (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've never been to Alaska, but based on what I read in the news, these days people say "Alaska Natives". I don't really see "Eskimo" being used anymore. The dog2 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it isn't (and we can confirm it), then we should say that it has fallen out of use also in the US. If the advice that was here was obsolete, then better it was removed, but "racist slur" is quite strong language. If we don't know for sure, we should use a more cautious wording, perhaps something about "in Canada". I make a try, to be improved when we have done the research. –LPfi (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've done some further editing. Here's the thing. Many people from Singapore may use terms like this because these terms were very common in the storybooks and cartoons my childhood, and people have no idea that they're offensive today. That's they reason we need to warn people not to use them here. Not just "Eskimo", but words referring to other historically marginalized peoples like "Negro", "Red Indian", "Aborigine" and so on. I don't know how Alaska Natives feel about the word "Eskimo", but I would not write that it is acceptable in Alaska until we know for sure that the Alaska Natives themselves don't mind. The dog2 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless :w:Eskimo has got it all wrong, I think saying never is too strong: according to that article, Eskimo is used when referring to both Inuit and Yupik (calling Yupik Inuit might be as insulting as calling them Eskimos – I don't know), and the word seems to be used in some legal contexts. It is clear that the word should be avoided, but are we sure it should never be used? I don't see how it is necessary to say "never" to discourage Singaporeans from using it. –LPfi (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the Canada guide. In Canada, it should never be used. Travellers should avoid it. That's all we need to deal with here. If it's different in Alaska, let's deal with that in the Alaska article. Ground Zero (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, the term "Eskimo" is only derogatory in Canada and Greenland. It is still seen as acceptable in the United States (even though its usage is diminishing). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Alaska Natives" is a catchall term and not at all limited to Inuit people. See w:Alaska Natives: "Alaska Natives[...]are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska and include Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and a number of Northern Athabaskan cultures." Of those peoples, only the Iñupiat people self-identify as Inuit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I understand that. The question is whether or not the Alaska Natives find "Eskimo" offensive when it is used to refer to them, which is the case with the Inuit people in Canada. It is certainly possible that only some but not all indigenous ethnic groups in Alaska find "Eskimo" offensive, given that they're all different, but I don't know. Things can certainly change with time. When my dad was living in America, using the term "Negro" to refer to black people was the norm, but it's now offensive, and I have to remind him not to use them term whenever he comes to visit me. The dog2 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read w:Eskimo if you like. I really have no idea what Alaskan Iñupiat folks think about the term, but I also don't know how to pronounce "Iñupiat". I have no idea whether mispronouncing that name would be offensive. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm Canadian & have Inuit relatives & friends. (Northern Quebec & Ottawa area). Some of the older ones still call themselves "Eskimo" & younger ones don't seem offended by the term, though they'll often correct it to Inuit. Not always, though they are almost certain to correct mix-ups between Inuit (plural) and Inuk (singular). Pashley (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply