Talk:Pimicikamak

Cross Lake First Nation is a band under the Indian Act. Pimicikamak is an indigenous people (now called an aboriginal people in the Canadian constitution) that existed long before the Indian Act. They are like oil and water. Merging would serve only to confuse and would be singularly inappropriate (not to mention that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs have both - separately - apologized for such activities). Fhusis (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking through it, the CLFN article needs some work. CLFN is a valid subject for an article in my view but the lead off sentence and much of the rest of it is not about CLFN it is about the town of Cross Lake. More confusion we do not need. Can someone find time to work on Cross Lake First Nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhusis (talk • contribs) 05:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope and grammar
I understand that Pimicikamak is used as a singular noun in Cree both when it refers to the government and territory and when its refers to the people. But the names of peoples are not used that way in English. We have one name for Germany (the state and it's territory), and another for the Germans. They are closely related but they are two distinct concpets. And since Wikipedia is a catalouge of concepts, not words, this article is a troublesome to me.

But the name of this people (as with others) is used that way in Cree.

As of now, I am concerned that this article mixes three usages: ethnic or national group / territory / government in a way that will confuse the readers. We don't do this with other peoples (compare Australians vs. Australia vs. Government of Australia) and we shouldn't do it here.

If someone can convince me that the situation of the Pimicikamak is so differnt that the tripartite division of the land the people and their government doesn't apply, then we can deal with that, but as of now I don't see that. I see a people that has a structure that governs itself and its lands. That doesn't mean we need three articles but we should be clear which of the three we are talking about when we use the word, and use the proper grammatical number when talking about the people (plural) and when we are talking about the land and government (singular). "The Pimicikamak are" when talking about the people in general, but "Pimicikamak is" when talking about the land or polity.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the land, the people and the government are inseparable. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (among others) has referred to the ongoing policy of seeking to sever them as "cultural genocide". With this qualifier, I applaud Kevlar67's desire for clarity. And the correct usage is "The Pimicikamak peaople is" when talking about the people. The plural is "Cree peoples are", or, in the Constitution of Canada, "the aboriginal peoples of Canada".—Fhusis

Merge discussion
Both this and Pimicikamak Cree Nation are the same topic; and that other title's format is reserve, in Wiki-terms, for band governments, which there isn't one of in this case. Unless there's a compelling reason to not merge these (in which case someone please explain, and then the other article needs a different title), this merger is fairly obvious.Skookum1 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 your point looks good on the surface. But in fact the two topics are profoundly different. They have less in common and more fundamental distinctions than, say, Canada and Winnipeg. ("Pimicikamak Cree Nation" is itself problematic as it is not actually a name of anything and as a description is confusing. But that is a matter that one day should be sorted out in that article.) Merging them would do serious violence to an already troubled area of public incomprehension.—Fhusis —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)