This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
Since you asked at WT:FAC I looked over the article. It has definitely improved a lot since the last time I read it! One thing I noticed was in the early life section, it states: "Michael would later note that the American military did not provide compensation for much of the labour that Inuit workers performed including three months of work transporting wood. To make space for the military construction projects, Inuit residents were relocated to a nearby island, and Michael later described that no housing was provided for them and no means of transportation were given for them to travel between the island and the mainland." It seems to me that it is likely possible to verify some of this information from other sources (i.e. beyond Michael's statements) which would allow these incidents to be phrased more definitively. If the only source for this information is Michael's statements than "note" and "describe" may not be the best word choice per MOS:WTW. (t · c) buidhe18:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been meaning, ever since these fixes by CambridgeBayWeather, to go back and standardize the usage of Inuk/Inuuk/Inuit in accordance with reliable sources. I have now implemented the standards of the Canadian federal public service to use Inuit either as a noun for a group greater than two or as an adjective, and never followed by the word "people", while Inuk is a singular noun and never an adjective, and Inuuk (in accordance with other sources like this one) is the noun for two people. Hopefully I've got it all right this time. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Secretlondon, I just noticed this question. Yes, that's the distinction. Abe Okpik was a legislator in a provincial/territorial legislature, but he was not elected to that position. Other Inuit were certainly elected for many other positions before Simonie Michael, but no Inuk had previously been elected as a legislator in a provincial or territorial legislature. This is how Michael is consistently described across independent reliable sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I don't think this is splitting hairs, since appointment is a very different process from election. For example, a woman has served as Prime Minister of Canada, but a woman has never been elected to the post in the sense that none has been the leader of a party that won a plurality of parliamentary seats, formed government, and named her as the Prime Minister. That's a distinction that I believe matters to a lot of people, and when it happens, many will justifiably feel that it is a momentous occasion worthy of note, separate and apart from Kim Campbell's prior accomplishments. My reading is that being the first person from a certain group to win a post through an election is a standard milestone for reliable sources to focus on in coverage of elections, representation, and political history. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
