Jump to content

Talk:Tsinstikeptum Indian Reserve No. 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2011 census population numbers

[edit]

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the most immediate subsequent changes to my last edit, but can anyone determine a particular reason for the irrelevant comments made by him? I reported resident census population as given to me by Statcan. I would assume that Statcan's definition of population would be all people that it counted as living in this entity, and not just individuals who met a certain criterion. And I am not TBrantley (whom I do not know), by the way, the name by which he addresses me. I am the actual editor who submitted the input that he refers to. Backspace (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my mistake about TBrandley, his was the most previous edit and I've been dealing with him a lot......and as for the edit comment, it's about how you made it sound like this was the largest aboriginal community after the Six Nations one; it's anything but, it's a bustling suburb of Kelowna with thousands of non-native residents. And yes, your beloved StatCan (sic, real people call it StatsCan, I don't give a fig about their rebranding) has no sign at all of the really relevant information about their reserve-based census division....in fact it's very pointedly absent. So the comparison to the Six Nations reserve was wildly offbase and to me a reflection of your penchant for working on articles whose subjects you know nothing about. Other than what StatsCan tells you, that is, and that's not very much at all in this case.Skookum1 (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop correcting people about StatCan. No one "gives a fig" that you prefer StatsCan. Hwy43 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm not going to stop using it just because the feds rebranded it.....now will all the people who also use it; in that HuffPo article's forums for example.....and in most newspaper reportage, too.Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has asked you to stop using StatsCan. Hwy43 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I said that this was the second-largest Indian reserve by resident population, not by Indian population only. Statcan gives these numbers and does not say whether they are Indian or not, just live bodies. I cannot determine how many of them are Indians or not Indians. There is nothing to support any more facts than I have already given, which is how many people (of any kind) were counted as living there. While what I say might be considered by you as "insufficient", my only goal is accuracy (not telling any lies) and corroboration (by somebody acceptable to Wikipedia, therefore Statcan. With over 30,000 edits so far, very little that I post here gets rejected. It is because nearly all of my sources are "acceptable", not necessarily because they are infallible). Not telling lies does not mean that I tell everything that I know, only that what I do tell is not untrue. Omissions, in other words, are not untruths. They are merely unknowns. In your mind, "incomplete", sure, maybe even in my mind. But completeness is not my goal here. Truthfulness is.
As far as working on article whose subjects I know nothing (or very little) about, I do that all the time, but if you would just check through my Wikipedia history, I only touch very narrow aspects of those subjects. In particular, you could boil down just about everything I do here (as Backspace) under the simple question of "Where in the heck is this place?" On the particular topic of Indian reserves, you will never see an edit from me regarding who the Indian chief is or is not, or whether he belongs to this party or that party, or how many children he has, or what tribe they are from, or what kind of car he drives, or any of that stuff. It's not that I am not good at those subjects as much as I have no interest in them. I am good at geography, plus a few other topics, however, and you are quite likely to see me edit that aspect of an article on just about any subject that I "know nothing about". Backspace (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my comments just made on my talk page, but please keep this discussion on this talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Best so far I could find is this which was linked on the RDCO's site - still doesn't break it down though.......haven't looked up the BC Stats Development Region's figures yet; though they probably date from the '06 census, not sure about 2011's.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my reply on my talk page? Use the 2006 census community profile for the IR population breakdown. Hwy43 (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Didn't see it yet, and even if I did I have twenty things on the go at once, and not just on Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So when is that reference going to be added? The 2011 data that now supports the claim has been available for two days now. Meanwhile, thank you Backspace for satisfying the first citation needed tag. Hwy43 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had the stomach flu for two days now.....why didn't you add it yourself, since you know where it is??
I shouldn't have to do it for an experienced editor such as yourself. I did find it the day of the release, but am now have trouble relocating it. Hwy43 (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you happen to notice me saying I've had the stomach flu and that I've got twenty things on the go at once; it's not like this is the only thing I'm doing. Why don't you add it? You're an experienced editor, too.....though I do have some issues with your impatience ("have you even read my reply on my talkpage yet" and more)......have a look at my contributions just for today....I've been amending articles other than this one, and you don't see the non-Wiki work I'm doing, nor the time I spent researching cites for this and other articles. Get real. If you want it cited, and found the link, why do you want me to do your work for you? Sheesh. Think I'm gonna go puke (literally).Skookum1 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is - 86% of the population is non-aboriginal. Please add. Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that people who place citation tags, and know why to find the citation, never add citations themselves? BTW check that map, wherever it is in that cite, against the previous one; a chunk of land in one corner is no longer there, I think; doesn't look the same. Anyways, look boyo, you're the one who added the citation tag.....do you have some kinds of hands-off policy about finding cites when you think one is needed? I mean, honestly, "as an experienced editor", why don't you just do it???.Skookum1 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This says a lot about you and your priorities. Why is it that people would rather spend a way longer amount of time (possibly up to a maximum of 18 minutes according to your contribution history) to argue on a talk page rather than take 10 seconds to add a reference that was spoon-fed by another editor? I must thank you though as you've proven your priority is to focus nearly all WP energy on debate and belligerence in talk space and be lazy in article space.

Don't play the busy or sick card to anyone on here. We are all busy and have other responsibilities, and we all get sick from time to time. You certainly aren't sick enough to focus what little energy you should currently have here rather than taking an iota of time to do what you should have done in the first place when you added the qualifier. If you are too busy multi-tasking on WP to forego doing the simplest of things that experienced and respected editors are expected to do, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Also don't pull the "why do you want me to do your work for you?" on me. As said above, that exactly my problem. Why should I have to cite something for you? I've been nothing but patient and helpful by telling you where you can find the cite, and even providing you with the cite two days after the most current information became available. Rather than you expressing appreciation for the help, you'd rather kick and scream in response to a measly request to add a cite that was found for you, and engage in an argument with the editor that helped you find it about who should add it. Wow. Ungrateful. Disrespectful. Anyone watching this sees right through you.

I certainly don't have a hands-off policy on adding cites when needed. What I have noticed though is that you don't care to add a cite when requested and feel its fine for others to do it for you, and not appreciate those who do it for you. My point is that if you continue as is, I'm no longer going to go out of my way to be helpful to you, just like I was above by taking my time out of my busy schedule (and greater priorities) to do things like advise of where and when you can locate an easily findable reference, then go further by actually finding it for you, only to then be told I should be the one to add it. Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"as long as 18 minutes" according to my edit history. I don't suppose it's occurred to you I have six non-wiki projects going at the same time, and am also monitoring and working on other articles (including adding cites, e.g. to the Innu ones I've mentioned). It's you who've been accusatory, just as you did on the communities thing a few times, being impatient with me not doing as you've instructed, and using "do you even pay attention to my talkpage" etc, as if that's the only thing I'm doing. Get a grip. When you find a cite, especially one you've found, why tell me about it, why not replace the cite tag you placed.Skookum1 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I type at 120 words a minute. You making presumptions about "how much time I'm wasting by making a reply" to your insistence I do your work for you, and throwing a base accusation like "playing the sick card" is just noxious. I live in the tropics, have had nausea and diarrhea in 40 degree heat and am in a country where tropical disease is a major risk. You being condescending and patronizing and spending all that time writing t hat lengthy personal attack" is just stupid, OK?? And rude, like you often are yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in reviewing some of the articles now in Category:Mi'kmaq governments is appears there are reserves in NS and NB that have over 3,000 inhabitants that are not in the list above; could be because those are INAC figures, not "StatCan".....strikes me that there are others also not in that list.....e.g. Sheshatshiu in Labrador is, I believe, extremely populous. INAC though, compiles figures for all reserves of any one band, and not by-reserve, which makes agglomerations problematic like the several at Mt Currie or Moricetown and others problematic.Skookum1 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wrong about Sheshatshiu, only 900-odd.......Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation article has a dead INAC link, I'm busy at work right now, don't have time to look it up.....my main issue is that raw numbers blur the meaning of "most populated reserve" if most of those inhabitants are non-native (see the annotated list in the section following).Skookum1 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found it on INAC - current population as of March 2013 is 1,447.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been trying to find Six Nations 40 on the 2006 Census, and on the current 2011 HSA or whatever its acronym is; both community profiles in 2006 (Six Nations 40 is in two parts) give no figures at all, perhaps because this is one of those reserves that census takers and govt officials are not welcome on....this is the one and this is the other. A search for the 2011 figures on the link you provided gives me search results only for "Standard Geographical Classification" with no links to figures (here and another I can't find right now (Six Nations 40 is always listed in "(part)".Skookum1 (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StatCan is saying that the NHS data for both parts is suppressed for data quality or confidentiality reasons. No data from 2001 either. After two censuses of incomplete enumeration, at least there are total population counts for both parts in 2011. Too bad the data is suppressed beyond that. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Six Nations of the Grand River page has this on its lede: "Six Nations (or Six Nations of the Grand River) is the largest First Nation in Canada with a total of 23,902 band members. 11,865 are reported living in the territory." and the citation is their monthly membership update page, which includes some graphs I haven't looked at yet. There might be something in there about non-aboriginals living on the reserve, I haven't had time to look yet...and should get back to work.Skookum1 (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IR-defined census subdivision re "real" IRs

[edit]

That the comparison given is to the Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation is entirely misleading, as that reserve IS entirely aboriginal. This one is decidedly not. Why only some IRs are used as census subdivisions and others are lumped into other census subdivisions is problematic, but the point is that this is a CENSUS SUBDIVISION whose boundaries match that of the IR. Comparing raw numbers without examining the reality of those numbers is something like WP:TRIVIA and also WP:OR. Hopefully the new data on the 8th will allow this to be made more clear. I have my doubts about those figures, also, Capilano 1 includes the Park Royal area of West Vancouver and adjacent parts of North Van and has a huge non-native population.....but it's not a census subdivision, not that I know of. Big difference between a "reserve population", meaning aboriginal population, and "population living on IR land", which can be anyone; and cherrypicking data then comparing a completely different kind of place without regard to the demographic details beyond raw numbers is irresponsible and misleading.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is intentionally trying to mislead anyone or cherry-picking. Comparing the raw total population numbers is not TRIVIA or OR, but thanks to you, we've learned that there is more behind the raw numbers. I can appreciate this attention to detail. Note that lumping certain IRs into other CSDs is not relevant here as this is not the case for either of these IRs and such practice only applies to apparent unpopulated reserves.

Here are the facts:

  • Does Six Nations (Part) 40 have the highest total population (regardless of aboriginal status) among IRs in Canada? Yes.
  • Tsinstikeptum 9 have the second highest total population (regardless of aboriginal status) among IRs in Canada? Yes.
  • Is this fact attributed to the unusual circumstance that the vast majority of this IR's population comprises non-aboriginals? Yes, 86% in fact.
The sentence "The Canada 2011 Census reported an official population of 5,882 inhabitants, making it the second-most populous Indian reserve in Canada (following Six Nations 40 in Ontario), although most of those inhabitants are non-aboriginal" states all of these facts.

So why must the sentence now include an "Indian Reserve-defined census subdivision" qualifier? First of all, what is an "Indian Reserve-defined census subdivision"? It is incomprehensible. And despite this, the point you are trying to make with this qualifier is redundant with the point you already made by appending the "...although most of those inhabitants are non-aboriginal" qualifier to the end of the sentence, hence the assertion of overkill.

As you've indicated, this IR's boundaries matches its CSD boundaries. This is correct, and of all other IRs in Canada that are designated as CSDs by StatCan, there is no reason to believe that any of their CSD boundaries do not correspond to their IR boundaries. Hwy43 (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that Electoral Areas of Regional Districts share the same boundaries as census subdivisions, they're not the same thing; they share a boundary; one is a statistical area, the other an electoral area from a different jurisdiction and tier of government. You may consider it "overkill", I consider it accuracy and appropriate detail. The problem is that when a casual reader sees "population of the reserve" they will assume it is native/aboriginal people that are being counted. And as you note in passing, not all IRs are census subdivisions, some are lumped in with other areas for statistical use. And, er, isn't that "census subdivision" term "right on the map that Backspace linked to"? To me confusing the concept of a "reserve", especially in its lower case form, vs "Indian Reserve" which is a formal land designation; you may recall, if you were around then, my objection to the "original research name" category Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia and its related categories; that is an invented term, and with lower case "r" can imply reserve-communities made out of agglomerations of reserves, vs a boundary-defined land unit. Big difference. I know this from being raised on, in one case, and next to, another (Slosh 1 at Shalalth, Langley 2 in Mission; and re that latter one INAC's figures for the Kwantlen FN can't be right, or don't take into account the several hundred people I know live on that reserve (which is a trailer park, with no aboriginal inhabitants....not Kwantlens anyway, if there are any). One of the complaints that FN people have about all this is, in fact, t he use and abuse of statistics, which is one reason they're often hostile to census takers. Backspace's map says "census subdivision".....why do you have a problem with that? Oh, "overkill". To me, it's overkill to throw around population figures without context to make comparisons/rankings that don't represent FN realities.Skookum1 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found a way to make the qualifier more comprehensible. I'll make the edit now. Hwy43 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've yet to find a reference that confirms the assertion that the Six Nations "reserve IS entirely aboriginal", but this is beside my point. Hwy43 (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out, the Six Nations 40 reserve has 14 bands on it, and while their registered populations can be totalled and the off-reserve members subtracted, doing so would be original research, wouldn't it? On the Upper Mohawk registered population page, for example, there are 2,843 living on-reserve and, er, 3,261 living off-reserve....but it doesn't say if some of those might be on Glebe Farm 40B, which is another reserve...shared by 13 of the same 14 bands.Skookum1 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found from the 2006 census a breakdown of census subdivisions, I see Brantford on the list, but don't see Six Nations 40 (Grand River's legal name, presumably the same as that of its census subdivision), but the numbers given must be aboriginal in the City of Brantford, as they're nowhere near the figure provided by Backspace's research; haven't looked through all the many aboriginal profiles that are possible on this page and data compilation for 2011 is apparently by different methods isn't it? The first link given, though, might be useful for List of aboriginal communties in Canada if there is one, because it lists aboriginal populations more than just those on-reserve.Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Capilano 1 on the books at Statcan, but there is a Capilano 5 in the location that you describe (49°19′18″N 123°07′57″W / 49.32167°N 123.13250°W / 49.32167; -123.13250). The 2011 census showed a population of 2,700 inhabitants (versus 2,492 in 2001). Capilano 5 is the eleventh-largest Indian reserve in Canada by population (and the second-largest in British Columbia). The Statcan map can be seen here: Map of Capilano 5 at Statcan. Backspace (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should just said the Capilano Indian Reserve, then, as it's usually known. Another case where the article needs to delineate between an IR with non-native populations vs the aboriginal population. The Six Nations seems to be the largest of the latter for sure, but to me comparing it to a reserve with a non-native majority population is highly misleading and care must be taken when making comparison between such reserves and "real" reserve communities. Which one of those is largest in BC is debatable at the moment....Tsespinktum and Capilano don't fit that bill for sure. and place with large Indian pops on-reserve are often more than one reserve, e.g. Mount Currie and Moricetown. Raw, unqualified statistics are famously misleadingSkookum1 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Others that come to mind with large non-native populations are the Burrard and the Seymour reserves of the Squamish Nation (north end of 2nd Narrows Bridge, and I think the Mosquito Creek one in North Van City, or just west of the boundary with the District of North Van. Ones where there are no native populations but large non-native ones are the Langley IRs on the Stave River just east of the Maple Ridge-Mission boundary (huge trailer parks). List of Indian reserves with large non-native populations might not be needed, but on the lists of Indian reserves, a population column or two with such details would be very revealing. I think the Tsuu T'ina Reserve west of Calgary also has a lot of non-native housing on that, not sure about that though.Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to say a thing about Indian populations, because I don't have any sources, but here is a list of the largest in B.C. by general population only. These are the only ones with as much as 1,000 people total, officially in 2011.
  • Kamloops 1 (B.C.) 2,577
    • breakdown not available on INAC
  • Cowichan (B.C.) 2,337
    • All Cowichan Tribes reserves (9)
      • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons 1,930 970 960 1,255 625 630
      • Registered Indian 1,855 925 930 1,210 605 600
      • Non-registered Indian 80 45 35 50 20 25
  • Duck Lake 7 (B.C.) 1,917
    • See Okanagan 1 above
  • East Saanich 2 (B.C.) 1,709
    • Population of all Tsawout Band reserves
      • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons 1,635 785 850 1,425 675 755
      • Registered Indian 550 275 275 420 220 195
      • Non-registered Indian 1,090 510 580 1,010 455 550
  • New Songhees 1A (B.C.) 1,678
    • population of all Songhees Band reserves:
    • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons 1,295 675 615 1,140 615 525
      • Registered Indian 1,230 640 590 1,095 590 505
      • Non-registered Indian 65 40 25 45 30 15
  • Penticton 1 (B.C.) 1,667
  • Musqueam 2 (B.C.) 1,569
    • All Musqueam Band reserves (2)
      • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons 1,370 685 685 1,285 625 660
      • Registered Indian 600 280 315 505 245 260
      • Non-registered Indian 770 400 370 780 380 395
  • Burrard Inlet 3 (B.C.) 1,472
    • Population of all Burrard Band/Tsleil-Waututh reserves
      • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons Not available Not available Not available 1,200 565 645
      • Registered Indian Not available Not available Not available 215 105 115
      • Non-registered Indian Not available Not available Not available 990 455 535
  • Tzeachten 13 (B.C.) 1,467
    • Population of all Tzeachten reserves
      • 2006 2001
      • Total Male Female Total Male Female
      • Total All persons 1,165 550 620 705 350 365
      • Registered Indian 260 120 140 210 105 105
      • Non-registered Indian 910 430 480 500 240 255
  • Mount Currie (B.C.) 1,306
  • Tsinstikeptum 10 (B.C.) 1,186
    • See Tsinstikpetum 9 above
  • Bella Bella 1 (B.C.) 1,095
  • figures not available on INAC

Backspace (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your StatsCan cites/list doesn't seem to match what's on INAC, that's for sure. The Sheshatshiu figure for on-reserve (and there's only one reserve) is 1,291. There are others I came across last night; it may be that such IRs aren't separate subdivisions...which is one reason comparing StatsCan figures isn't as relevant as the figures that INAC has (if they have any, sometimes they don't for the same reason that StatsCan won't - the bands don't allow them on the IR). Population figures aren't yet on List of First Nations reserves in Canada and its sublists, perhaps they should be; but more than one source should be used, obviously.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would not surprise me that Statcan numbers do not match INAC numbers, if we assume that they are independent agencies who do not coordinate their efforts very well. And I never mentioned Sheshatshiu because it's obviously not in British Columbia. But since you are straying farther afield, here is a list of the largest Indian reserves in all of Canada according to Statcan's 2011 "official" numbers. There are 93 of them that have over 1,000 population plus three more that have missing data, but which had over 1,000 population in 2006 (i.e., five years before).

Six Nations (Part) 40 (Ont.) 6,213 Tsinstikeptum 9 (B.C.) 5,882 Norway House 17 (Man.) 4,758 Blood 148 (Alta.) 4,679 Samson 137 (Alta.) 3,746 Stoney 142, 143, 144 (Alta.) 3,494 Eskasoni 3 (N.S.) 3,309 Siksika 146 (Alta.) 2,972 St. Theresa Point (Man.) 2,871 Garden Hill First Nation (Man.) 2,776 Capilano 5 (B.C.) 2,700 Seekaskootch 119 (Sask.) 2,612 Peguis 1B (Man.) 2,609 Okanagan (Part) 1 (B.C.) 2,604 Wikwemikong Unceded (Ont.) 2,592 Kamloops 1 (B.C.) 2,577 Sandy Bay 5 (Man.) 2,509 Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory (Ont.) 2,506 Pessamit (Que.) 2,420 Nelson House 170 (Man.) 2,399 Cowichan (B.C.) 2,337 Opaskwayak Cree Nation 21E (Man.) 2,319 Mashteuiatsh (Que.) 2,213 Split Lake (Part) 171 (Man.) 2,107 Fort Alexander 3 (Man.) 2,099 Manawan (Que.) 2,073 Obedjiwan (Que.) 2,031 Richibucto 15 (N.B.) 1,985 Cross Lake 19A (Man.) 1,937 Duck Lake 7 (B.C.) 1,917 Lac La Ronge 156 (Sask.) 1,914 Pelican Narrows 184B (Sask.) 1,913 Fox Lake 162 (Alta.) 1,875 Ermineskin 138 (Alta.) 1,874 Oxford House 24 (Man.) 1,864 Sandy Lake 88 (Ont.) 1,861 Listuguj (Que.) 1,850 Pukatawagan 198 (Man.) 1,826 Tsuu T'ina Nation 145 (Sarcee 145) (Alta.) 1,777 Cross Lake 19 (Man.) 1,751 East Saanich 2 (B.C.) 1,709 New Songhees 1A (B.C.) 1,678 Penticton 1 (B.C.) 1,667 Big River 118 (Sask.) 1,636 Stanley 157 (Sask.) 1,634 Musqueam 2 (B.C.) 1,569 Fort Albany (Part) 67 (Ont.) 1,520 Uashat (Que.) 1,485 Burrard Inlet 3 (B.C.) 1,472 Tzeachten 13 (B.C.) 1,467 Nipissing 10 (Ont.) 1,450 Factory Island 1 (Ont.) 1,414 Wasagamack (Man.) 1,411 Lac-Simon (Que.) 1,403 Kitigan Zibi (Que.) 1,401 Ahtahkakoop 104 (Sask.) 1,354 God's Lake 23 (Man.) 1,341 Beardy's 97 and Okemasis 96 (Sask.) 1,322 Maliotenam (Que.) 1,316 Sheshatshiu 3 (N.L.) 1,314 Louis Bull 138B (Alta.) 1,309 Mount Currie (B.C.) 1,306 Ebb and Flow 52 (Man.) 1,297 Oneida 41 (Ont.) 1,282 Lac La Hache 220 (Sask.) 1,251 Christian Island 30 (Ont.) 1,249 Sturgeon Lake 101 (Sask.) 1,225 Waywayseecappo First Nation (Man.) 1,219 Piikani 147 (Alta.) 1,217 Wemotaci (Que.) 1,194 Kimosom Pwatinahk 203 (Deschambault Lake) (Sask.) 1,194 White Fish Lake 128 (Alta.) 1,188 Tsinstikeptum 10 (B.C.) 1,186 Sturgeon Lake 154 (Alta.) 1,162 Fisher River 44 (Man.) 1,160 Sioux Valley Dakota Nation (Man.) 1,147 Chemawawin 2 (Man.) 1,134 John d'Or Prairie 215 (Alta.) 1,123 Garden River 14 (Ont.) 1,107 Bella Bella 1 (B.C.) 1,095 Indian Brook 14 (N.S.) 1,084 Long Plain (Part) 6 (Man.) 1,078 Chicken 224 (Sask.) 1,070 Wabamun 133A (Alta.) 1,069 Kehewin 123 (Alta.) 1,065 Burnt Church 14 (N.B.) 1,046 Tobique 20 (N.B.) 1,039 Sagamok (Ont.) 1,036 Berens River 13 (Man.) 1,028 Alexander 134 (Alta.) 1,027 Gordon 86 (Sask.) 1,017 La Romaine (Que.) 1,016 Curve Lake First Nation 35 (Ont.) 1,003 Pikangikum 14 (Ont.) [missing data, 2006 = 2,100] Walpole Island 46 (Ont.) [missing data, 2006 = 1,878] Fort Hope 64 (Ont.) [missing data, 2006 = 1,144] Backspace (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sick overnight and am feeling yucky, so only did a basic copy paste from INAC's site..not time for a table, feeling sick need nap...The Tsentstikpetum data above seems incomplete; these are compilations of all reserves for bands, compiled from individual CS data from the census, which is not linked on INAC's site for checking. The main gist of this reply/data is that there is a qualitative aspect to raw data; Mt Currie and Bella Bella are overwhelmingly native....I haven't looked up the Six Nations one yet.Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tsinstikeptum_Indian_Reserve_No._9&oldid=1207960906"