From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Mi'kmaq people)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Canada / Quebec / Nova Scotia / New Brunswick (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.

Kevin Cloud Mi,gmaq?[edit]

I have a strong suspicion that the Kevin Cloud linked to on this page is not the correct one. Somebody more knowledgable than me can confirm this. Ed Sanville 21:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Estimates of the original Micmac population vary between 3,000 and 30,000, with general consensus being somewhere around 20,000. European contact began early, and by 1620 epidemics had reduced the Micmac to less than 4,000. By 1760 their numbers had fall


I am reasonably certain that Mi'kmaq is now the more common spelling, at least in Canadian journalistic usage. It's the first spelling listed[ in my 1998 Canadian Oxford. I propose we move this. - Montréalais 16:56, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the province of Quebec, the spelling is Mi'gmaq - the g replaces the k in this area's dialect.

Bob Newman appears to not belong on this page. His bio says nothing about him being a L'nu (Mi'kmaw). We'jitu 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

] I put in the table, but on second thoughts, it looks rather busy, doesn't it? What do you others think? QuartierLatin1968 04:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be worth noting that the pronunciation of Mi'kmaq is not "mick-mack" as many people call it, but rather "mig-maw". It would be great to have the pronounciation written out in the IPA format but I don't know the first thing about doing that. - PullUpYourSocks 16:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to try to tell me what the letters in Mi'gmaq represent, I can render it in the IPA. Of course, the result will only be as good as the info you give me, since I know nothing about the language itself, and I understand it's rather divergent from other Algonkian languages. Let me know on my talk page, in case I miss it here. kwami 12:35, 2005 July 14 (UTC)
From what I've read, I believe the pronunciation is /miːkmax/. The spelling <Mi'kmaq> is in the Listuguj orthography. Since /k/ is allophonically voiced in this case, I think the pronunciation ends up being [miːgmax]. Mi'kmaw is the singular form, which I imagine is pronounced /miːkmaw/. The spelling in the official Francis-Smith orthography would be <Míkmaq>. But don't quote me on any of this; I'm just using online resources here. --Whimemsz 22:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
It's always [miːgmax] and [miːgmaw], and never /miːkmax/. In other words, the k in Mi'kmaq is always pronounced as a hard g and it sounds like meeg-mahgh. Actually that last sound denoted by q is a little more raspy and voiced than unvoiced, so it would be closer to ɣ than x, ie, [miːgmaɣ]... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In the table you've forgotten Red Bank, in Red Bank New Brunswick. I don't have any numbers, however, or pronounciations for you. I have more information on the Mi'kmaq, my family is from Eel Ground, so I will work on something to add to our article. --Irina 02:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In the table, the spelling for Whycocomagh was incorrect (Whycomagh). However, the page for Whycocomagh has the correct spelling. So... I assumed that it was just a typo, rather than ignorance; seeing as you had to have typed the correct spelling in the source code for the page to link properly. All fixed.

Some good work has been done since I last checked this out. I made a few corrections regarding the Wabanaki Confederacy and the Treaties with Britain. There were five nations in the Confederacy, not seven; I added their names. I think the person who wrote that was thinking of the seven districts, with the historic addition of Great Britain as the eighth (as illustrated by the eight pointed star). I changed that statement and moved it to the end. Davidzukovny 04:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that was me, thanks a bunch for setting that straight! Cheers, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever added the flag. I added a bit about the concordat with the Vatican, and also the population of Abegweit FN (constantly changing, but an estimate). I made a few other minor changes. Davidzukovny 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see someone changed the details of the concordat to having been concluded with the French Jesuits. Obviously it was concluded by the Jesuits, but my understanding was that it was on behalf of the Vatican and the Holy see? Davidzukovny 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq subdivisions and POV[edit]

Anonymous user added the following paragraph to the Mi'kmaq subdivisions section that contains numerous problems:

"As many Micmacs spoke Scottish Gaelic as French, since New Scotland had inhabitants who can trace their relationship back 1,000 years to the Irish/Scottish/Swedish immigrants who came with Eric the Red to Newfoundland and then crossed into Nova Scotia and into Martha's Vineyard. The Island of Cape Breton was predominantly French and Scottish Gaelic and English speaking natives. The people had no automobiles until around 1914 and no road to the mainland until 1954. They all fished and farmed. There were no rich people in Cape Breton other than a few well-known engineers in the Baddeck area, like Alexander Graham Bell. Almost all the people lived a basically subsistence lifestyle except for one or two refugees from the French and Scottish Revolutions which drove Catholics out of the Highlands and out of France in the 18th century and then the Catholics out of Russia in the early 20th century. My father's tribe of Micmacs in 1913 spoke mostly Scottish Gaelic or Scots English. If any Canadians spoke anything in the 20th century other than a European based language, they must have been living in the Northwest Territories of Ontario, known as the Hinterlands. All Nova Scotians from at least 1905 were required to go to English schools in Nova Scotia."

Some of the problems here:

  1. In first person, and apparently anecdotal.
  2. Factually incorrect. Erik the Red never made it to Newfoundland for one, and the settlement party with Leif Eriksson would have been only Norse, including no Irish or Scots. Nova Scotia was called that precisely because it was granted by Charles I to a colonizing group from Scotland in 1620. However, the colony was short-lived due to politics between Britain and France at the time, and any Gaelic seen today is likely the result of large numbers of Gaelic-speaking Highland Scots emigrat[ing] to Cape Breton and the western portion of the mainland during the late 18th century and 19th century (from Nova Scotia#History).

So my question to other Wikipedians is, can we use any of the added material? I suspect that anecdotes don't cut the mustard, but I'm not sure, and thus I will not delete this section right away. If no one has any comments in the next week or so, I'll remove the paragraph. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 18:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The first person narrative needs to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 8 March 2006, 21:54 (UTC)

I disagree with this deletion. Narratives like this are an important part of Mi'kmaq culture. Davidzukovny 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be an important part of their culture, but this is still supposed to resemble an encyclopedia. Gelston 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's fictional... Gaelic was certainly spoken in Mi'kmaq country, but I've never heard of any Mi'kmaq themselves speaking it... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


What is the population information, is that status indians, or people of aboriginal descent, or self identified mi'kmaq? I had thought that mi'kmaq population in Nova Scotia alone was 20K, slightly less than the 30k for Acadian and 30K for African Nova Scotian. WayeMason 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Our population figures don't seem to agree with each other. I added some figures for estimated pre-contact population. I have never seen anything lower than 5,000, but that is definitely at the low end. I know the Crown in the Marshall case acknowledged that it might have been as high as 10,000-20,000 (and we can guess that their figures would tend to be a lower-end estimate), and I have seen as high as 35,000. But that does not seem to gibe with the numbers that someone put in the chart. Any suggestions? Also, someone has changed my population figures. Is there any particular reason for this?Davidzukovny 01:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the population to 40 000. I've also changed to population of Paq’tnkek First Nation to 500 (It was listed as 10 000 previously, which is far too large). If you add up the population of the Mi'kmaq communities listed you get well over 20 000; actually fairly close to 30 000. This population plus the numbers from the new Qalipu Band forming in Newfoundland means the population is likely well over 40 000 (Qalipu is going to be well over 10 000; rumours are suggesting overr 20 000 people have already applied).

Matt White 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwhite05 (talkcontribs)

Are the population figures given for the various reserves supposed to be the number of band members for that band, no matter where they live, or of the actual Mi'gmaw population living on the reserve in question? I think it should say. Stats Canada population numbers are not accurate for reserves as -- at least I am told -- residents of reserves don't have to fill out census forms. I assume however at INAC has accurate numbers of who is a member of any given band, although probably not necessarily where all those band members live. The number for Listuguj seems higher than it should be to me, unless it is based on total number of band members because many live in neighbouring Campbellton NB, down the USA, etc. In any event, I think it should be clarified what the number represents. Tim from Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Míkmaq orthography[edit]

I'm requesting discussion about moving from Mi'kmaq to Míkmaq for articles relating to this topic. Please see Talk:Mi'kmaq language and discuss there. Thanks! Evertype 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge from L'nu[edit]

We don't need two articles about the same nation. A section on the various names used to designate the nation could easily fit in this article. Indefatigable 12:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

New paragraph in 'Other' on possible relation of the Mi'kmaq to 15th Century Ming Dynesty maritime explorers[edit]

The salient portion reads: '...the Mi'kmaq on the east coast of Canada are fifteenth century descendants of Chinese explorers' . If so then one could reasonably conclude that there would be both genetic and linguistic similarites between Mi'kmaq's genome and language and those of the Chinese mariners. A cursory look shows no relationship to the Algonquin member language and Mandarin dialects. Has anyone done research in either area to validate Chiasson's conjectures?

There's a website which debunks Chiasson's claims, as well as those of Gavin Menzies, a researcher who makes similar claims with respect to early contact between indigenous North/South Americans and the Chinese. Chiasson's pseudoscientific theories have no place in Mi'kmaq history. -- MTLS
http://www.1421e . /html/exposed.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

History: Mohawk Contact[edit]

The history section talks of Mi'kmaq expansion into the Gaspé, saying "they were expanding from their Maritime base westward along the Gaspé Peninsula /St. Lawrence River at the expense of Iroquioian Mohawk tribes". There is no cited reference and I have to question the accuracy of the claim that it was at the expense of Iroquoian Mohawk tribes. Heading southwest along the lower St. Lawrence, today's Mi'kmaq would first meet the Maliseet then the Abenaki, who are both Algonquin language linguistic family members. Where the river narrows near Quebec, the north shore would include the Huron-Wendat Iroquois people.[1] Even looking at the Mohawk entry, historical maps show them to be located nowhere north of Montreal. I think this sentence should be changed unless someone can show a reliable reference. AnthroGael 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the plain simple fact that 3 of the Nations you mentioned are part of Waponakiyik, the Wabanaki Confederacy (those being Maliseet, Mi'kmaq, and Abenaki). Further, that part of "Gaspé" is claimed as traditional territory, despite the "Quebec" government saying they don't have such a claim. Interjecting personal opinion here: personally, I don't see why a foreign government could say whether or not someone's land was theirs if said gov't has none on that land to begin with. KJI (talk) SR (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: New paragraph in 'Other' on possible relation...[edit]

That's the first time I've seen that theory. Rather amusing. I've seen the "Ancient Egyptian" one, because of a superficial resemblance of writing to hieroglyphics, but it's very superficial. We know where we came from ;). I wouldn't count that conjecture as being valid.

As for moving the article to Mìkmaq, I'd be in favour of it, since that's what the ' is for; however, leaving it as is is easier to type for some keyboard layouts.

SimonRaven (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sean McLaughlin, Ryan McLaughlin[edit]

I checked Sean McLaughlin's online bio and nowhere does it claim that he is Mi'kmaq. Why is his name listed? Ryan McLaughlin: there are no online references to a "Ryan McLaughlin" who is Mi'kmaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Codex, you say there needs to be discussion for the recent move you reverted. Well, how about it? You are apparently the only one who has a problem with it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. -- Evertype· 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. kwami (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

from The Canadian Guide to English Usage. "'The Aboriginal people formerly called Micmac now spell their name Mi'kmaw (singular; pronounced MIKMAW) and Mi'kmaq (plural; MIKMAK). The Union of Nova Scotia Indians and the Mi'kmaq Grand Council have adopted these forms and request that others follow their practice". Doug Weller (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK they're wrong. The Grand Council adopted "Míkmaq". "Mi'kmaq" is an orthographic shortcut. It's a bit like arguing whether the word is cœlum or coelum. I think we should stick with the official spelling. kwami (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've tried contacting the Grand Council, but I can't find a functional email address. kwami (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The Union of Nova Scotia Indians uses 'Mi'kmaq' on their web page [2]. So does the under construction site of the Grand Council at [3] - I presume you tried and it didn't work? Doug Weller (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it bounced immediately. kwami (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Looking just at the edit summaries, I thought the request for a citation for Mi'kmaq still being spoken was silly. However, we say that 1/3 of the Mi'kmaq speak their language. I think a precise claim like that does require a source. kwami (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Precise numbers require an equally precise footnote. It seems someone is guessing and can't begin to furnish a reference. There is no reference. The material is WP:OR, apparently an invention.Student7 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Really? And how much research into it have you done? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Til, no need to get testy. Although calling your edit 'vandalism' is of course ridiculous (perhaps that was just a bot-automated edit summary? it's worded like one), research is irrelevant: the article makes a specific population claim that needs referencing. Expecting Mi'kmaq to meet equivalent sourcing requirements to English or French is entirely reasonable. kwami (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Used Ethnologue, and reduced the pop. from 40k to 15k. kwami (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the edit summary was caused by the auto revert, I did not edit it in.
Thanks for the update and footnote. I do not interpret the reference the same way the Wikipedia article does. The reference claims that in some areas the language has been completely lost; in others not spoken by anyone under 35. The "50" percent seemed to be aimed at a second or third language capability in some groups - a bit vague IMO. "Literacy rate in first language: 1-5%; Literacy rate in second language: 50-75%. 800 or more readers." Not sure what that means. 800 is a lot less than 50%. But this reference gives us a start and is objective, though vague. Student7 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
They're talking about literacy, not speaking. kwami (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not so sure. Look at this closely - there are not a lot of books written in this language. Nowdays they could be self-published on a computer I suppose, but until 10 years ago, you'd have to use clumsier methods. We're not talking an encyclopedia written about the world or anything. Not a lot of radio stations nor television programs nor videos.That is the misfortune of languages spoken by few people. If the kids want to listen to cartoons, it's going to be in French or maybe English with French subtitles or dubbing.
Another problem you'd have to contend with is the orthography of the language which was reduced to writing by the French with probably mispellings/misunderstandings along the way. Not terrifically accurate. You are going to have sounds in Mi'kmaq that can't be properly reproduced in French or maybe the Roman alphabet.
The study was, I suppose commissioned, didn't get a lot of response to a survey (which they anticipated) and had to guess at literacy by random interviews as well as the few surveys they got back. I think you are looking at 800 "or more" people who are fluent in Mi'kaq. I suggest forgetting about percentages. The percentage was aimed at some group but not the entire people IMO. With nobody speaking it under 35, that would be about half, right there. And some don't speak it at all. Another loss. If a person is literate in French or English, they shouold be able to read Mi'kmaq if (and only if) they spoke the language to start with. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
There are about 8,000 status Mi'kmaq Indians, mostly living on reserves, who are fluent in the language, or about half, as the article currently says. The Mi'kmewey language is not a very literary language; it has always been more of a spoken language among the People. You really sound more and more like someone who has never even cracked a single book on it, Student! A couple years ago, Wikimedia got a proposal for a Malecite wikipedia, and I counter-proposed that a Mi'kmaq wikipedia should come first, since there are only about 800 fluent Malecite speakers, and 8,000 (10x as many) for Mi'kmewey. However, neither proposal seems to have generated enough interest from computer-literate speakers - who are far fewer in number than literate speakers. You can't judge a language by whether or not it gets a wikipedia or is accessible on the internet, though - Look at Afar language of Eritrea for instance - it has a million and a half speakers, but almost every one of these, spend their entire lives herding cattle - not plugged into a computer; so, the 'pedia was closed for lack of writers. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


We need to have a standard spelling for Mi'kmaq throughout the article for consistency. It makes the article more credible and shows that the editors are paying attention and trying. I personally don't like the contracted spelling but it is the title on the article. Can't we standardize to that? There are currently 4 or 5 spellings at least (ones under etymology and others that need explanation are excluded of course). Student7 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and this has been an issue before. All of the main Mi'kmaq publishing groups today use "Mi'kmaq" as in the title of this article. And it's not because they can't find any keyboard they can make an Í on, take my word for it. The apostrophe is the correct spelling in the Francis orthography, as intended. That's why I added two sources to the "name" section that state the importance to the Mi'kmaq of getting it right. If you click all of the other external sources that are currently spelled Í in the article, I think you will find the sources themselves use the apostrophe. And the apostrophe doesn't represent a contraction. According to the grammar books I've read, it indicates that the letter k is pronounced like a hard g, in exception to normal phonetic rules of the orthography, where a k followed by a consonant is pronounced like English k. But I've had a hard time convincing everyone that the apostrophe is correct. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The apostrophe doesn't go with the k, it goes with the i. It shows that it's a long vowel. That's why the Francis-Smith orthography placed the diacritic on the i, not on the k. The k is pronounced voiced, [g], because it is between voiced sounds, a vowel and m. It has nothing to do with the apostrophe. kwami (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Til, you're making rather bizarre changes to the IPA. All I did was correct the orthography. I made no changes whatsoever to the pronunciation. You are reverting away from the IPA; in your last edit, you used half IPA & half Latin. And according to Míkmaq language, the existing pronunciation was correct to begin with. Do you have any refs that is pronounced [g]? kwami (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say " is pronounced [g]". Look at it again. I said the <k> is pronounced [g]. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one's disputing that! I've kept <k> as [g]; you're the one saying it's incorrect. You also changed to [g], this time using the correct IPA g at the same time you reverted the first to a Latin g. That's just bizarre.
In your edit summary you said, "the q is pronounced ɡ not the 'k" (that is, "the q is pronounced g not the 'k"). But in your edit, you made both of them [g], and used different g's. Maybe you don't have a font with IPA support? kwami (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about, I simply cut and pasted the ɡ to represent q (where it belongs) from the 'k (where it doesn't belong, because that is pronounced g). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you don't have full IPA font support, or maybe in your preferences you've overridden the default wiki IPA fonts to something which lacks some IPA characters? You just said, "I simply cut and pasted the g to represent q (where it belongs) from the 'k (where it doesn't belong, because that is pronounced g)." Evidently you're seeing ɡ and g as two different letters, when in fact they're merely two variants of the same letter. The IPA says both are acceptable, and many people use <g> because of typographic issues, but in formal situations it's better to use <ɡ>, just as it's better to use the stress and length marks rather than substituting an apostrophe and colon. kwami (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the final sound in Mi'kmaq represented by q is not exactly [x]... it is the more voiced version of [x]. I thought the symbol for that was ɡ, but perhaps not... Do you know what the symbol is? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a voiced velar fricative is [ɣ] (Latin gamma), like the Modern Greek pronunciation of γ. The Mi'kmaq refs that I've seen only say that q is a velar fricative, as in Bach, and don't explicitly mention voicing. I'd think that it would be voiceless word-finally, and perhaps voiced between vowels, but I'm just guessing there. (It would be typologically very unusual for a language to have voiced fricatives but not voiceless fricatives, though sometimes velars are a bit odd.)
[ɡ] is just a cursive <g>, and actually looks is identical to the g in the sans-serif font I'm seeing right now. kwami (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, here we go:[4] q, like p, t, k, j, and s, is voiced between vowels, voiceless "elsewhere". There are "some exceptions", which I assume includes being voiced between a vowel and a voiced consonant like m, n, l, y, w. So I'd expect Mi'kmaq to have a voiced k but a voiceless q, but we really need better refs. kwami (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't begin to take sides here BUT, as you know, vowels (not consonants so much) "float" with time and change. Consonants may change some as well. As a result, we do not really know precisely how English sounded in (say) 1600, much less a language that was rendered into the English or French language/orthography. You seem to be arguing "sense" here, which is great ordinarily, if it is really a problem that can be solved with logic. I'm inclined to doubt that. My suggestion is to (you were expecting this, right?  :) find a reference that makes the same claim you are supporting and use that. There has to be a pronunciation guide to the tribal name itself somewhere. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone should fork the pronunciation vs spelling discussion here - I don't think they are related. Anyway, I just changed Micmaw to Mi'kmaq which I realize now was probably wrong. Having done it, it does raise two questions: 1) why is the adjectival form so different from the tribal name. i.e why no apostrophe? Why was the "q" dropped? 2) and the worse I can say about the apostrophe - hard to look up. Casual readers are not going to be able to get to an apostrophed name easily. example: some ____ changed the name on the Hawaii article to Ha'wa'i'i. This may be correct, but you can also imagine (in English) how few people would find the article. This was changed back almost immediately by overwhelming consensus BTW. Student7 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an apostrophe. The q/w is part of the grammar of the language. kwami (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling only - not pronounciation[edit]

Having decided above that there was supposed to be an apostrophe, someone reverted everything to the material without the apostrophe. Note that in the first sentence, it has it without the apostrophe first, and with (the title) second. This is inconsistent

Then the article admits that it is spelled "Micmac" in English, Um. This article is supposed to be in English! Why don't we use "Micmac" as the title, first in the lead with other explained and "Micmaw" as adjectival form? This makes more sense to me and avoids confusion. Admit it. Even you guys are confused and you are the experts. Think of how much casual readers will be confused. Student7 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article now makes it plain with multiple sources that Mi'kmaq is correct and preferred nowadays, that "Micmac" is a corrupted and outdated form, and why. Still more sources could be found explaining this, if you do not think it is enough. I see that you do seem confused - since you keep writing the form "Micmaw" which doesn't ever appear anywhere. Thus I would explicitly oppose moving the article to "Micmac" or anywhere else, other than where it is now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
'Micmac' is no more "corrupted" that "Peking". Changing spelling conventions is fine, but it doesn't require one to be "bad" and the other "good".
'Micmaw' is a common term, and is also correct, even if you (or the Mi'kmaq) prefer a different spelling. kwami (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you've proved that obviously you've never spoken about this with a single live Mi'kmaw speaker in person; once again you are pontificating from your armchair about things you've only read and are presumably very far away from you. If you had ever spoken with real live Mi'kmaq who know something about the subject, you'd never say that! And you sound so authoritative, too... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. That's like saying that you can't use the word "Chinese" unless you've spoken "with real live Chinese", but must use Zhōngguo, or you must use Napoli instead of "Naples" unless you've spoken "with real live Italians". "Micmac" is the common English word, "Micmaw" less so; if the Mi'kmaq would prefer that others use a specific orthography, that's fine by me, but it doesn't change centuries of English usage. kwami (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it's patently absurd because the spelling "Micmaw" is only used erroneously and ignorantly; it's a horrid hybrid of the misnomer "Micmac" and the correct adjectival form Mi'kmaw. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the disambiguation page (created by Kwami) "Mi'kmaq is the plural form of Mi'kmaw, meaning "our kin-friends" or "my friends." Nothing is said about the adjectival form.Skookum1 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)[edit]

  • Favor since Micmac, whatever its derivation is English and does not contain an apostrophe, hard to find and spell in English. We will never know what the word sounded like in native form since it was mapped into a non-Micmac alphabet hundreds of years ago. We have hundreds of names in English that do not match what other languages use, Rome vs Roma, Florence vs Firenze, Venice vs Venizia, Germany vs Allemand, Austria vs Oesterreich, etc. etc. What is, is. Let's make this less about political correctness, elusive here because of orthography and time, and more about what makes sense and can be documented. Student7 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Yet another editor who cannot read. The quote below by Hornborg says it all. If it has not been demonstrated to your satisfaction that Mi'kmaq is now by far the most common spelling in English and has been since the 1980s, while Micmac is considered demeaning and should be avoided, what more would it take? I honestly think you are trolling me now just to see what kind of a reaction you will get, becaise you couldn't possibly be this obtuse. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As before, this is not a personal vendetta! You have contributed a lot to this article and will continue to contribute more, I'm sure. I don't like apostrophes in titles if they can at all be avoided. It means that the site will have fewer readers automatically. We want more readers: therefore wouldn't it be best to pick the English form (if proven by scholarly reference to be a correct form)? i've personally seen Micmac a lot in genealogy reports. Corrupt? Maybe so, but so what. That's English for you! It's best to stick with what is common IMO unless proven to be quite wrong. Hard to do when one is mapping one language to another's alphabet when the original language is no longer around to be re-mapped if necessary. We don't have recordings or written records in the original to go back to.Student7 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, it gets redirected from Micmac. Not the end of the world but still maybe desirable.Student7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not about political correctness. We are trying to use whatever is actually used. A google search on "Mi'kmaq" turned up 300,000 hits; Micmac = 3 million. It seems to me that Micmac is what is being used.Student7 (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You clearly haven't been paying attention to a single one of the RSS. Look on Google books, where you can see the dates of publication. You will find that most of the hits for "Micmac" are older, while hits for "Mi'kmaq" are far, far more common in anything written within the last 20 years. This squares perfectly with what all the sources you've been ignoring, have been telling you pointblank, about how the spelling "Micmac" is severely outdated, and comparable to the term 'Eskimo" instead of Canadian Inuit, etc. etc. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I happen to belong to a religion that has Yoshua as principal figure along with his mother, Miriam. However, these became corrupted into something else over the years.....(Maybe we should get them to "correct" it back in Wikipedia?).Student7 (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose According to reliable sources Micmac is now considered offensive both by the Mi'kmaq people and in Canada in general. Google hits is a bad guide because the correct spellings are various with and without apostrophe and accent, and with or with out q/w.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Finding additional quotes, since there is still confusion[edit]

"The more phonetically correct spelling gained ground in the 1980s, partly because the Nova Scotia Museum introduced the spelling... Today, the designation Mi'kmaq has become standard. In this volume I will use the phonetically most authentic spelling (Mi'kmaq), except in case when the word is part of a quotation from a source that uses the English spelling Micmac. The spelling of the word is not without meaning. First of all it is the spelling which is recommended by the Mi'kmaq themselves. For some Mi'kmaq, the English spelling is a further example of the European annexation of Mi'kmaq language and culture. To get their own spelling legalized was and still is an important step for modern Mi'kmaq in rebuilding their culture." -- Mi'kmaq Landscapes By Anne-Christine Hornborg (2008) p. 3

hang on, I'm looking now to see if i can find more quotes like that one, woudln;t surprise me if I found several more. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you've transcribed it wrong. According to that passage, it's "Mi’kmaq", not "Mi'kmaq". (In case you think I'm being silly, take a look at "Hawaiʻi" vs "Hawai'i".)
There's also the problem that not all Mi'kmaq speak with one voice. According to Evertype, at least one council prefers "Míkmaq", and for all I know others still use "Micmac". Language isn't absolute.
For example, according to the Mìgmaq writer Emmanuel Metallic, in his The Metallic Mìgmaq-English Reference Dictionary, (see also Brian Swann, Voices from Four Directions, U Nebraska 2004), there is no common orthography. The spelling "Mi’kmaq" ("Mi’kmaw") was adopted by the Nova Scotia Mìgmaq in the 1970s. He says that there is not complete consensus because the use of the apostrophe is awkward, especially in the computer age—suggesting that the substitution of <i'> for <í> was a practical concession to the manual typewriter, not a change for its own sake. New Brunswick uses "Miigmaq". The Listuguj Council in Quebec uses "Mi’gmaq". Metallic prefers none of these, and uses "Mìgmaq" & "Mìgmaw" for his dictionary. As for "Micmac", he says that this is the traditional spelling, and the most popular (at least absolutely), but is "perceived as being colonially tainted". He does not address the orthography in Maine.
Per our naming conventions, "Mi'kmaq" is inappropriate as a local Nova Scotian form that does not give adequate representation to all Mìgmaq. It looks like our best choices are "Mìgmaq", which is was designed to be an inter-community standard, or the traditional English "Micmac". Ethnologue' retains "Micmac", perhaps because there is no consensus on an alternative. kwami (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have provided three quotes in full (two in the article) explaining why Mi'kmaq is the only acceptable form ,and the most common one in all English publications by far since the 1980s. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you're pushing a regional form, since there's no pan-Mi'kmaq consensus, but it's obvious that Mi'kmaq is not "the only acceptable form". There are three Canadian orthographies, divided along provincial lines. Metallic writes that "the most popular spelling is still the traditional spelling Micmac, [which] is the one used most frequently by non-Mìgmaq people." It would seem that both of your claims are false. kwami (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not pushing a regional form, and becoming embarassingly clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are presuming to tell people who are fluent in the language that they are all wrong, and that you are right about their language even though you have never even so much as heard a single word of it spoken by fluent speakers, because you read misinformation and disinformation on the Internet. If you want to travel to where you can hear the language being spoken, then while you are at it, mention that you happen to be a bigger expert about their language than they are, and you are right and they are all wrong, and see how long it takes before they ask you to move on. I have found THREE reliable sources all explaining the same thing to you, but its like you do not wish to hear what they all say about the importance of the correct spelling, prefer to hear the exact opposite, and continue to pull alternate spellings out. We are talking about the spelling that is most common in the English speaking world, including all of Canada and the US, not just Nova Scotia. That spelling is Mi'kmaq. I could double the length of this page, just with listing scholarly publications in English that use the correct spelling Mi'kmaq in the title. (They are not as obstinate as you, or hmmm, perhaps they just actually know people who speak the language and know what they are talking about, unlike you). I could almost definitely find still more RSS explaining, like the three I already found, why other spellings should not be used in English. (Remember, once again, we are talking about what has been the most common ENGLISH spelling since 1980s, not some "International tribal standard" in the Mi'kmewey language or whatever you keep inventing. Wikipedia policy is only concerned with the most common ENGLISH term nowadays, not with variant dialectical forms in Mi'kmewey.) On the other hand, try finding some scholarly papers IN ENGLISH that use the nonce spelling "Migmaq" in the title, and tell me if you can find single one. Please, please stop making a fool of yourself and accept what all these sources are consistently telling you about the most common ENGLISH spelling, it was Micma il the 1980s and since then it has been Mi'kmaq. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
ALso it is supremely ironic that you keep referring to Manny Metallic, because if you would bother to get his 1976 book "Micmac Teaching Grammar" (note he uses what was then the current English spelling in the title of his book, but is no more the most common English spelling since the 80s) it would set you straight about what the apostrophe really means, and everything else about the orthography, since you repeatedly get several points tragically wrong and again prove that you have never heard the language spoken, but everything you know is from a computer. If you want to know Mi'kmaq, you have to hear it spoken live on person, not read an encyclopedia about it and suddenly claim to be an expert and that all the speakers of it are wrong and you are right. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I had no idea you spoke Mi'kmaq. It's not at all apparent from the way you attack people you disagree with, rather than presenting evidence to prove your point. Personal attacks are inappropriate and can get you blocked. You might want to try sharing what you know rather than citing sources that do not support you and insisting that you're right anyway. We are generally delighted to have native speakers contribute, assuming they know what they're talking about. (Most native speakers of English don't know much about English, and the same's true of every other language.)
There are three regional orthographies. The are not "dialect" forms, according to Metallic; they follow Canadian provincial boundaries, not dialect boundaries. Wikipedia is a reference tool, so you should not delete such information. All three orthographies should stay.
The most common spelling in English is "Micmac". Per naming conventions, we follow generally common rather than academic spellings. I'm happy to make an exception if that's the wish of the Mi'kmaq community (or a portion of the community)—such considerations are also general practice—but there's no need to delete all other contenders.
As for "scholarly papers IN ENGLISH that use the nonce spelling "Migmaq" in the title", what, you don't accept a dictionary as scholarly? Please. Yes, "Mi'kmaq" is more common than the other native alternatives, which is why we use it in this article.
And as for the nature of the apostrophe, it would be most helpful if you could enlighten us on what Metallic said. This "if you only knew" argument isn't going to carry any weight. kwami (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I never said I spoke Mi'kmaq, but I will say at least I have heard fluent speakers speaking it on many occasions. In fact, since you brought it up, I have briefly studied Mi'kmewey grammar from Metallic's 1976 book, but would hardly pretend myself to be fluent by any means. Unfortunately I do not have this book accessible to me now, or I would be more than happy to enlighten you what he says about the apostrophe. The book is kinda hard to find. And no, the spelling Micmac is no longer the most common in English, that's really dated. You ask me to cite sources that support me (still more sources?) how about I make a list of all the recent English-language publications that have the spelling Mi'kmaq in their titles? It could get too long though. And you will also find that the spelling Micmac was more used before the mid-80s in English language sources, just like the quote I found from Hornborg says, and I've been trying to tell you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Shoot. A native speaker would have been nice. You certainly implied that you spoke it: You contrasted yourself quite patronizingly to me as a non-speaker. I agree that the relative frequency of "Micmac" has decreased, and I don't doubt that in scholarly pubs "Mi'kmaq" predominates, but I doubt it predominates in general, which is what our naming conventions are based on. I'm happy keeping the article at Mi'kmaq, and using that spelling in the body, so I don't see how this topic is an issue here. No, I don't mean "still more sources", but that you have something to back you up when you claim something. (Your sources so far have said the native orthog is preferable to the English orthog, but it doesn't follow that any one native orthog is preferable to the others.) You say the orthographic differences are dialectal, but it appears that is not the case. I don't know what you're claiming about the apostrophe: function? appearance? kwami (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Still more quotes, in an attempt to resolve the confusion some still have[edit]

  • This page footnote 10: cites a footnote to Ruth Holmes' Whitehead's Stories from the Six Worlds: Micmac Legends (1988) then explains: "While Whitehead uses an anachronistic spelling of the tribal name, the proper usages are Mi'kmaq as a noun and Mi'kmaw as an adjective." Source: Messy Beginnings: Postcoloniality and Early American Studies‎ (2002) by Malini Johar Schueller, Edward Watts
  • From the 2001 preface to the 1940 fictional novel Quietly My Captain Waits: "When this novel was first published, Micmac was the common spelling of the name of the Native People of Nova Scotia and eastern New Brunswick; it is now more acceptable to use Mi'kmaq."
  • From the preface to A History of Canadian Literature (2003) by William New, p. xiv: "The spelling of Aboriginal tribal names and languages has been updated (Mi'kmaq instead of 'Micmac', for example)."
  • Postcolonial English (2007) by Edgar Schneider, p. 248, argues that the spelling change from Micmac to Mi'kmaq is directly parallel to the change from "Eskimo" to "Inuit" (an argument also appearing elsewhere in literature). He says "Barber regards these developments as 'the result of a more inclusive post-colonial mentality.'" Arguing to move this article to Micmac is exactly the same as proposing a move from Inuit to Eskimo while whinging about "political correctness".

I see lots of more sources beside these, saying exactly the same thing; are these not enough? let me know and I will put more here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You're the only one arguing about moving this page to Micmac. Are you arguing with yourself, or is someone emailing you?
Yes, the Nova Scotia orthog is most common native orthog in English. That's been a given for about two pages now, but you're still hammering away at it. I don't get it. kwami (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Kwami, perhaps you didn't see yet the "proposed page move" added to the top of this page by another editor earlier today, see also the proposed move section above here... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry! I thought *we* were having this debate! My apologies.
I'm more or less neutral about the move. "Micmac" has much wider recognition, but the community prefers Mi'kmaq, Mìgmaq, etc. (of which Mi'kmaq is the most common)—but "Micmac" isn't pejorative, merely an English adaptation like "Canton". (I prefer "Canton" too, BTW. I'd even go for Peking and Persia for that matter.) kwami (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Checking some English dictionaries might be helpful here as to determining common English usage. The Oxford English Dictionary[5], Merriam-Webster[6], American Heritage Dictionary[7], and[8] all use Micmac. Generally they include Mi'kmaq as an alternate spelling, though the most authoritative, the OED, gives several other alternate spellings and does not indicate which one is the preferred. However, Encarta has Mi'kmaq in both their dictionary[9] and online encyclopedia[10]. Similarly Encyclopedia Britannica uses Mi’kmaq.[11] Hopefully this helps.--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New England?[edit]

Other than Northern Maine, is there any evidence of Mi'kmaq habitation in the rest of New England (i.e., Vermont, New Hampshire, Mass., Conn., NY)? If so, this should be cited. If not, the text should be changed "Northern Maine" in the interest of specificity. Ross Fraser (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I know of one who lives in Southern Maine but I can't say the name as he is under 13 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by A915 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion ..[edit]

initial question answered; the rest is banter. Go elsewhere Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

For THeir Religion It Is Not Christianity. I Believe It Is Catholic. According To My School Book.,, (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, Catholicism was a form of Christianity. Yworo (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait I Will See About That. Just Wait Minute. (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay Then Kid You WOn It. You Are Right. Catholicism Is A Form Of Christianity. Thank You For Correcting My Error. (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church is by far the world's largest Christan denomination. About half the world's Christians are Catholics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh . So You Are Saying Which Religion Is Better. I THink You Are Saying Catholicism Is Better. Am I Not Right . (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)__ __

Why try to read between the lines? He said it is largest. While Jerry Garcia once asserted that "louder is better (where I come from)", neither that assertion nor the assertion that "bigger is better" is necessarily true. Bugs was just stating a fact. Yworo (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I Know SomeBody Who Is Christian . But The Person Is Not Catholic Too. (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that follows from Catholicism being a subset of Christianity, doesn't it? Yworo (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian denominations by number of members indicates 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, and a quick calculation indicates that's at least 50 percent of the overall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So You Are Kind Of Saying Yworo. Your Ancesters Can Be Catholic . Somewhere In Time It Can Convert To Christianity. Am I Right Yworo . (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)__

One Decimal Two Billion Catholics In The World That Is Lot Of Catholics. If You Are Smart In Doin That. How About Answering The Question Here. How Many Christians Are There In The World . (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (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.

Mígmewei Wikipedia[edit]

L'nui'sin ki'l Mi'kmaq ? Nikma'jtut apoqnmatultinej ! Mikmaq Wikipedia Wela'lin Amqui (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Environment & Society Peer Review[edit]

To: Ncjones61

I see that you have done some editing and contributions to this article. Based on looking at this article, I feel that you should expand and add information in the Pre-culture contact section as well as the last section. Another thing you can do is explain what your contributing to this article. Other than that I think you are doing a good job on this article. Cheers! (Cmmetallic (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

Beothuk and Mi'kmaq common ancestors[edit]

The wikipedia on the article on the "Mi'mkaq" states the following:

"Later the Mí'kmaq also settled Newfoundland, as the "unrelated" (quotes mine) Beothuk tribe became extinct."

Yet, in contradiction of this, the article on the "Beothuk" states:

"In 2007 DNA testing was conducted on material from the teeth of Demasduit and her husband Nonosabasut, two Beothuk individuals who had died in the 1820s. The results suggest the Beothuk were linked to the same ancestral people as the Mi'kmaq, either through mixing of the populations or through a common ancestor. It also demonstrated they were solely of First Nation indigenous ancestry, unlike some earlier studies that suggested European admixture.[5]"

The article on the Beothuk has the support of a recent scientific study....^ a b Kuch, M; et al (2007). "A preliminary analysis of the DNA and diet of the extinct Beothuk: A systematic approach to ancient human DNA" (pdf). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132: 594–604. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20536

I propose the word "unrelated" be changed to "related"....It is very important distinction that has had real world consequences...The Mi'kmaq of Newfoundland have had their land claims strengthened by the acknowledgement of their Beothuk heritage... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Legality claims and history[edit]

Since the article is making a legal claim of miqmak area to miqmak people (is that according to policy of wikipedia?) it would have been interesting to read if there are any conflicting claims other than Canada. It would also be of historic interest to mention if there are other cultures predecessing miqmak in the area. I wish as a christmas gift to myself that someone answer my questions. PLEASE??

It is against wikipedia policy to use this page for a general discussion of the article topic or query for information, rather than to discuss content. It is not against wikipedia policy to mention the fact that most Mi'kmaq sovereign land was simply seized without permission or payment whatsoever, unlike nearly all other other native nations, and in contradiction to the rule of law. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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: Move. As with the others, this discussion will benefit from a more centralized discussion, though it seems that the general consensus is to support moves of this type. Cúchullain t/c 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq peopleMi'kmaq – target is redirect to current title. Mi'kmaq first moved to Mi'kmaq (disambigution) [sic by Usyvdi no July 19 2013] then redirected to current title by same editor. Then turned into three-item dab page by Kwami on July 20 2013 then redirected to current title by BKonrad on the same day, warning Kwami about cut-and-paste moves in the process, then moved back to a dab by Kwami on the same day and immediately reverted by BKonrad then again reverted by Kwami, and reverted again by BKonrad, cautioning Kwami that "revert cut and paste move again; there is no "standard" that justifies cut and paste moves; you have been warned", to the redirect it remains at today. Somewhere along the way there were games with which apostrophe was to be used, I'll find those links later, which seemed to be an end-run on BKonrad's PRIMARYTOPIC insistence. Current standalone Mi'kmaq was at Mi'kmaq (disambiguation) as created by Kwami on Sept 22 2010 and turned by him into a dab page per its title on Jan 15 2011 then after an effort by Till Eulenspiegel to correct Uysvdi's misspelling of "disambiguation" was redirect to "Mi'kmaq" by Kwami on July 20 2013 contrary to WP:UNDAB and but for the third item related to the language, almost also to WP:TWODABS, then converted at first to redirect to current title then re-created as dab page by him on the same day. Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 20 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) 12:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Revisit your own discussion as it's clear by now that your "unanimous vote" there was in error and not made with reference or respect to many other guidelines including TITLE. Your copy-pasting of this objection to one-by-one RMs about "every ethnicity in the world" is hypocritical in the extreme, as it was you who blanket carpet-bombed thousands of articles based on that one, extremely flawed and entirely incestuous, self-serving guideline; discussion there is not needed, it has already been demonstrated that put the lie to the so-called "people-language pairs are equal primary topics" nostrum and also to you insistence that "people" is required, which is contrary to to CONCISE and PRECISION as indicated by others below and also the long-established though uncodified consensus within IPNA.Skookum1 (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Mi'kmaq is a redirect here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:58, 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 02:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per CambridgeBayWeather. In cases where the requested move simply eliminates the word "people", and the destination title is already a simple redirect to the current title, it is clear that guidelines favoring both precision and conciseness support the move. Xoloz (talk) 17:28, 30 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.