Talk:Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524005955/http://www.creetourism.ca/tourisme.asp to http://www.creetourism.ca/tourisme.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Map

Can someone update the map to show the merger? --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: There were no merging, there where not even a dissolution of the former municipality [1]. It was most a change in the composition municipal council, who now include the Cree comunities, a change of nome to Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government, and the lost of the administration of the Category II land, who represent 70000 km². Note that in frwiki, we simply renamed Baie-James to the actual name of the municipality ad create a article for the council, who is linked to this article. --Fralambert (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph literally reads:

"On July 24, 2012, the Quebec government signed an accord with the Cree that resulted in the abolition of the local municipality of Baie-James and the Cree Eeyou Istchee TE to create the a new and combined TE of Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory."

--Criticalthinker (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, Jamésie and Eeyou Istchee Equivalent territories always exist. --Fralambert (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand. Those are statistical divisons. They don't exist as municipalities or seperate local governments, anymore. How do I know more than you about this? --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well they existe as separated municipalities, since like the Act say: [2]: « The Regional Government’s territory is comprised of the territory of Municipalité de Baie-James as it existed on 31 December 2013, with the exception of the Category II lands. » Anyway, the map of the administrative division of Quebec are here. --Fralambert (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I did some more research into this, particularly reading the French pages, and here is what I came up with concerning the history and current status of EIJBT.

1. It does, in fact, appear that the entire concept of EIJBT on the English-language articles is incorrect. Whereas it's been understood on the English pages that EIJBT is a TE, it's territory is on the same level as the local municipalities (the Cree villages and associated lands, and the four villes). EIJBT and its associated government isn't juridictionally "above" the local municipalities, and thus isn't the equivalent of a regional county municipality. So, right there, I need to rewrite this page to make clear that the local municipalities aren't a part of or included in EIJBT.

2. Since EIJBT is not a TE, that means that Jamésie TE and Eeyou Istchee TE still very much exist. As the English-language articles are now written, they specifically say that these two TEs were abolished with the creation of EIJBT's regional government. This is not the case. Jamésie TE includes the territory of the four villes and the former territory of the Municipalité de Baie-James. The Eeyou Istchee TE exists exactly as it has since its creation in 2007.

3. So, in closing, the only thing the agreement changed is that 1.) the former Municipalité de Baie-James was, indeed, abolished in favor of an almost agglomeration-type local government - which is named a "regional" government - which is overseen by the residents living in the two TEs, and 2.) the two TE and their local municipalities exist as they always did. The only difference with the creation of the EIJBT Regional Government is that it gives the Cree a bit more say over lands outside their non-contiguous and scattered Eeyou Istchee TE. They now have a bit more say over certain lands in the Jamésie TE outside the four villes.

Let me sincerely apologize to you Fralambert for being unnnecessarily rude. I had just gotten frustrated that no one from Quebec seemed interested in helping me with this and I lashed out. I believe now I understand the organization of the local governments (and EIJBT Regional Government) in this section of Nord-Quebec. I would be more than happy to go back through all of the pages I changed thinking I was correcting them and actually correct them, now, as well as the pages other English-language people wrote that turned out not to be correct. Let me know if I got anything incorrect in my explanation. All that said, I was not wrong about the need for a new map in the infobox. The map for EIJBT should basically show only the old area that was the Municipalité de Baie-James highlighted, excluding the rest of the Jamésie TE not covered by this regional government and and excluding all of the Eeyou Istchee TE. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

S'cuse me I was notified, but I don't have the time yesterday. I accept your apologize. If, you wan't I could always ask for a maps for the municipality on fr:Wikipédia:Atelier graphique/Cartes (I don't know if they are faster that the enwiki one). I found a updated shapefile without the Category II lands [3] and aparently it have a compatible licence [4]. --Fralambert (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Fralambert, yes, if you could do that, that would be great. Also, did you read through my explanation of the organization of the territories within Nord-du-Quebec? Did I get it correct? Specifically, I'm asking about the municipal status of EIJBT so that I may correctly label what kind of municipality it is. It seems that it is at least on the level of a local municpality (municipalité locale), but the page on its government in French Wiki reads:

"Ce gouvernement exerce « les compétences, les fonctions et les pouvoirs conférés à une municipalité locale, à une municipalité régionale de comté, à une conférence régionale des élus et à une commission régionale sur les ressources naturelles et le territoire »

So while it's on the same level as a municipalité locale, it seems to be a special case, which complicates what to label it on it's English wiki article. The article for French wiki page for the municipality calls it a territoire municipal. I want your opinion of which term I should use to describe it's municipal status in English, either "local municipality" or "municipal territory". BTW, I have updated/corrected the pages of Nord-du-Québec, Equivalent territory, Eeyou Istchee (territory), and Jamésie to reflect my new understanding of this area, but I've held off on fixing this page until you confirm to me that my theory or municipal organization of this area of Nord-du-Quebec is correct. --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

S'cuse me for waiting, I was working to lauch a Good article in the frwiki. Well, it seem fine to me. For the name of the municipality, we should probably got for the long form, like the rural municipalities in Western Canada. So I imagine Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government for the municipality and Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government council for the council itself? --Fralambert (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think your misunderstood. I was asking about whether its status should simply be described as a local municipality or something else since the government is different than that of a normal local municipality. Anyway, it seems Quebec's statistics agency simply labels it a municipality like any other, so I will just list that as the status. I guess my last question is whether the regional government has any say in the Eeyou Istchee TE cree villages or the four municipalities in Jamesie? And I ask this because the EIBJ regional government page seems to include the cree villages (Class 1 lands) as part of its territory, but I don't think that's correct. It's my understanding the Cree government has total local jurisdiction in these villages, and since EIBJT isn't a TE, there is no way the Eeyou Istchee TE is under the jurisdiction in any way of the EIBJT local government. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government into Eeyou Istchee James Bay; overlap, short text, unwarranted split, consistency with Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline. Klbrain (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Eeyou Istchee James Bay is a duplicate of this page. It was originally a redirect to this article, but content was added and now there are two articles on the same municipality. BhamBoi (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly sure of the process, here, but I'd support it so long as this article's information is what's used. Honestly, I have no idea of the difficulty, but it'd be easier almost to just revert that article back or delete it, altogether. Criticalthinker (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I modified the redirect page. At first "Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government" was a page about the administrative organ in charge of the territory of "Eeyou Istchee James Bay". But slowly over time, (and i'm guilty of some of it) informations about the geographical entity, the municipality itself, was added to the article. Therefore making it less and less about the Eeyou Istchee James Bay REGIONAL GOVERNEMENT. The idea about the change in the redirect page was to make a page called "Eeyou Istchee James Bay" wich would be about the municipality itself, and make the "Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government" page more focused about the administration in charge of that territory. --Roncanada (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. This is not typically how we do a municipal article, right? Most municipal pages simply have "government" section or something to describe the administration of the municipality. I'm not even sure what was done, here. We don't need a redirect; we need a merger of the two articles. Criticalthinker (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCSG says a complete article about a Canadian community (in this case a municipality) will have a Government section that describes governing body (council, mayor), administrative bodies, political representation, police and crime, military facilities, etc. If this article is about the municipality’s regional government, it should be merged with Eeyou Istchee James Bay with most content embedded into the Government section and other content laced in elsewhere under applicable sections per CCSG. In hindsight, what should have been done is adapting this page to be about the municipality as a whole and then moving it to the Eeyou Istchee James Bay title (over the redirect) instead of creating a new article. The topic is not large enough to warrant two different articles. Hwy43 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems this could be like the distinction between the Holy See and Vatican City. BhamBoi (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (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.