Talk:Passamaquoddy

Wabanaki Confederacy
Wikipedia needs an article on this. Any takers? :) Badagnani 20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq branches
Why are there 7 Mi'kmaq branches mentioned on the map when you can count 8?


 * Epelwik (Epeggoitg) "lying on the water" - Prince Edward Island. This also includes Piwktuk (Pigtog) "where gaseous explosions erupt" in Pictou County, Nova Scotia


 * Eskikewa'kik (Esgigiag) "skin dressers territory" - Halifax and Guysborough Counties of Nova Scotia


 * Kespek (Gespegiag) "last land" - Gloucester, Northumberland, and Restigouche Counties of New Brunswick and Quebec's Gaspe Peninsula


 * Kespukwitk (Gespogoitg) "lands end" - Annapolis, Digby, Quenns, Shelburne, and Yarmouth Counties of Nova Scotia


 * Siknikt (Sigenitog) "drainage place" - Cumberland County, Nova Scotia along with Albert, Kent, Queens, Saint John, and Westmoreland Counties of New Brunswick


 * Sipekne'katik (Segepenegatig) "ground nut place" - Colchester, Hants, Lunenburg, and Kings Counties of Nova Scotia


 * Wunama'kik (Onamagig) "foggy land" - Cape Breton Island

Where are there 8th branch ?


 * Taqamkuk (Tagamgoog) - southern Newfoundland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.219.14 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sixteenth Century?
The article says this:

The Passamaquoddy were moved off their original lands repeatedly by European settlers since the 16th century and were eventually limited...

What is the source for this? The 16th century seems very early, I don't think there was any significant European presence in the area until the 17th century.Britishisles (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Passamaquoddy people → Passamaquoddy – target is redirect to current title, created by Kwami on June 8, 2010, contrary to WP:UNDAB, original article created by DavidWBrooks on December 23 2003 Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 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) 12:48, 20 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 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as per the policy Article titles and the guideline Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Article titles also applies given that Passamaquoddy redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move of Passamaquoddy to Peskotomuhkati
Ghg4310, a new editor here, made a unilateral move of this article from Passamaquoddy to Peskotomuhkati. I suggested to the editor that he/she consult guidelines and other editors before making any more such moves. As you have all worked on this article at one time or another, I thought I would call your attention to this. Please notify anyone else you think may have input. Eric talk 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct - articles should not be moved without discussion and consensus. The move should be undone. I would undo the move but I'm not sure how, without losing the links. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverted, along w most of the changes by the mover. The info box he added appears to be bullshit; at least, I can't make any sense out of it. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)