Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Buffy documentary

@User:Yuchitown, I'm not seeing this published elsewhere yet, but heads up that a documentary is coming out accusing Buffy of being a Pretendian. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Being hearing that for months, but if it hasn’t been published, it doesn’t have any place in Wikipedia. Hope you are doing well. Yuchitown (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

It can be added when it airs and confirmed to be about her.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Although, I just read that linked article and it has a recent BSM quote from October 14th where she says “I think there’s been confusion regarding my Piapot adoption, for instance,” Sainte-Marie said of her connection to an elderly Cree couple that welcomed her into their family after she rose to prominence as a folk singer. “I was adopted into the Piapot family — not I was adopted out of Piapot Reserve.” So maybe the article can be updated with that?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It'd seem this article is due for an update with more than just that, in light of the Indianz.com piece. The story shows wide discrepancies with the narrative in this article across a number of accounts of Ms. Sainte-Marie's life history. Beginning with the fact that her birthplace is identified in this article as being on the Piapot Cree reservation in Saskatchewan, something for which there appears to be no evidence. 2600:8801:1E0C:7600:7D9F:5A6A:71:4D25 (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera When Buffy says that her "adopted" mother told her she may have been born on the "wrong side of the blanket", she means that her "biological mother" gave birth to Buffy out of wedlock? Or is that maybe insinuating that Albert Santamaria wasn't her real father? I wondered because, is there anything in writing that explains her appearance? David Cornsilk has said on social media he believes she dies her hair and lies in a tanning bed, but I see nothing like that in print. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It just sounds like more things she says about her biological family to throw them under the bus to upkeep her lies, even when they're dead. Personally, I've never seen an actual Native person with an orange complexion, reminds me of Trump. More things are going to be written about her, so who knows, that might come to light too.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yuchitown I'm good, thank you. Hope you are doing well. By now, these allegations have been widely disseminated in the media and Buffy has clarified that she is not a citizen of any tribe and doesn't know her ancestry or where she was born. So I think the article can be updated now, based on her own words: "I think there’s been confusion regarding my Piapot adoption, for instance. I was adopted into the Piapot family—not I was adopted out of Piapot Reserve. That makes a big difference." I'm unclear if Buffy herself claimed to be born on the Piapot reserve or if others simply inferred that, but the article currently states she was born there. EDIT: it is her own claim:

1. "I was born on the Piapot Cree reservation near Craven, Saskatchewan." 1986

2. "I’m told I was born in Canada, but I was adopted and I grew up in Maine and Massachusetts." - 2009 Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the addition which was a categorical unsourced statement. It was not sourced in the article, but going beyond that and noting the source noted in talk..... This is basically a "She's been lying" assertion which means that it must have strong sourcing per the higher standard of BLP. The study referenced in the source doesn't even say it's about her. There's just people saying that they think is about her. Let's see if this gets solidified. Or else maybe someone wants to prepare some sourced "questions have been raised" type wording. Sincerely, (posted Oct 26, signed later) North8000 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Now sourced to CBC and reported in the Globe & Mail. [1] [2] Lard Almighty (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks pretty solid. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any source on her having Canadian citizenship?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she is a substantive Companion of the Order of Canada means she is a Canadian citizen, as only Canadians can get substantive appointments to the Order of Canada. Given the questions raised by the CBC, obviously there can now be questions as to the exact process by which she gained citizenship, but she certainly is a Canadian citizen. JustAnotherEditHere (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No it is not certain she is a Canadian Citizen at all 129.222.186.137 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Oncamera @JustAnotherEditHere This source says she was researching and seeking out Canadian citizenship in the 1970s and early 1980s. The Cree lawyer Delia Opekokew wrote a letter in 1980 advocating for Buffy's Canadian citizenship. So she must have acquired Canadian citizenship sometime after 1980. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to develop some "middle of the road" coverage regarding the recent investigation and it's results, including it's descriptions of her previous claims being in conflict with what was discovered. Recent edits have swung between the extremes. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing "middle of the road" about continuing to feature a documentary that ignored the sovereignty of Piapot First Nation and the fact that they -including their Chief, as cited in the article - still claim her as a member through tribal adoption even despite the information the doc presented and allegations made against her. The court of public opinion isn't what determines whether a person is claimed by their tribe, and the way much of the information was framed by editors without scrutiny did not respect this fact. My personal advice is to continue to highlight the complexity of her family history without relying on sources that do not acknowledge what we know for certain: that she is accepted by her Native family and people. Questions regarding her past and how it has been represented are one thing, but she is not "pretending" to be a member of her tribe. Mwatuangi (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I think Mwatuangi is absolutely correct here. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We basically have to focus on the recent documentary by CBC Fifth Estate. Most of what was written about her before wasn't actual journalism (even by the CBC, ironically). It was celebrity publicity. It was reporters repeating what she said about herself, without fact checking, publishing contradictory claims by Sainte-Marie. The recent Fifth Estate story, clearly did fact checking, and laid out their sources. We must differentiate Indigenous "ancestry" and "identity". The cbc has made clear that her claims of *ancestry" have been contradicted by substantial evidence. It's now an established fact that she was born to non-indigenous parents in the US. That's a fact, by a reliable source, doing fact checking. It's not complicated or difficult. Records weren't lost. It's clear and simple. Now, *identity* is different. That's where there are disputes, and there is complexity, and I don't think we need to explicitly state a final opinion on the matter, but can cover notable opinions on the matter, and Piapot First Nation's position is probably the most notable of all, so far. --Rob (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

"It's now an established fact that she was born to non-indigenous parents in the US. That's a fact, by a reliable source, doing fact checking. It's not complicated or difficult."

This has no bearing on whether or not she is considered a member of Piapot First Nation and Piapot through kinship, which has legal standings independent of what a News source and information they collected without the assistance of Piapot First Nation suggests. She is a member of that tribe and was raised in that community according to tribal adoption customs and their laws. They have explicitly corroborated that and noted that her race has no actual affect on her being a Piapot citizen, even after all of the controversy the article generated. According to Ntawnis in yet another article that is cited, Sainte-Marie's Cree adoption process was not done under the pretense she was a blood relative either; she was still accepted as kin because of her completion of their ceremony.

This reflects yet another issue with how Native issues in the popular media are approached. Native kinship is not solely defined by or dependent upon "DNA", which is why we laugh when people use them as some proof they are tribal citizens/descendents or a person is truly a member of a Native community. There are different rules and customs communities follow and they preceded settler governments. People from Wes Studi to Kyree Irving and even Bob Barker are/were members of their tribes because their communities and tribes claim(ed) them, not because Ancestry DNA told them to. Even if Sainte-Marie was unquestionably "Indigenous" racially, it would have no bearing on whether she was claimed by her tribe, as plenty aren't for varying reasons. It's not simply self-identification or a cultural "identity" with no weight, it is also political.

Using the Fifth Estate as the definitive source on her past with her tribe when her Native family who are actual citizens and the Chief of the Nation have indicated that it does not reflect how they view her status is not the encyclopedic standard Wiki editors should be following. It continues the same colonial habit of non-Natives enforcing their own ideas of what belonging and Nativeness are on Natives. Her status re: Piapot First Nation is not what the CBC or Natives who are not part of Sainte-Marie's tribe and/or community -including me- decide or think. Their words aren't "probably the most notable", they are the only notable authority on this debate on whether she is a Piapot citizen or not, and if that documentary is included, this needs to be given precedent. Did her not having Natives on her birth certificate or her adoption status racially change her status to her tribe? No. So why are editors insisting it does under the guise they are objective when they mention that information in a contrarian manner right in the article itself? Her page does not read like an encyclopedic document, but an editorial opinion piece from (insert longform journalist magazine of choice). Mwatuangi (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still confused about what you're complaining about. I said the Fifth Estate documentary is an authority on her *ancestry*. You're talking about being a member of the Piapot. We do mention her acceptance with the Piapot. If you wish to improve that wording, either suggest change, or go ahead make a change to improve it. You haven't pointed to a single error in the article that's sourced to the documentary. Nobody is debating about her acceptance by the Piapot, and the article doesn't question it. The article correctly cites the documentary to say she was not born into the Piapot community, as Sainte-Marie claimed. So, again, please let us know exactly what you want fixed. --Rob (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused, if she was adopted then the DNA of her sister in the adopted family would settle nothing as they would bebiologically unrelated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:ED08:A00:60EA:2340:B12D:B24F (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Her being adopted didn't magically change her DNA or who her birth parents are. The documentary reveals the truth about those issues and goes over when Buffy decided to start claiming to be adopted and actually Indigenous. She did those things before ever meeting that Piapot family who adopted her (who likely believed her fabricated story).  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have already outlined the problems I feel the article has in the way it constantly references that documentary, to the point some contributions are overwhelmingly not NPOV in tone in some sections, even devolving into graphic detail of family controversies and other personal events that are not even tied to claims of her being Indigenous specifically.

The frequent dependence on it also means some segments are structurally unorganized. Other times, information clarifying previous claims was omitted -guess who added it?- and as a result made some issues seem unresolved when they are not. Those references to her status the chief mentioned? I added that too. And as can be seen by commenters, even these are being ignored as valid and contributing to the very problem I highlighted about how Native Sovereignty is undermined through the uncritical promotion of material like this documentary several times throughout the article.

Criticisms of this documentary, some of its more disputable claims, and its motivations are also nonexistent to provide a balanced perspective on this issue. If people are going to go out of their way to violate her privacy and literally post photos of her birth certificate on her page for random people to see, the very least these folks can do is include the same amount of effort in responses to it. Mwatuangi (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mwatuangi She was adopted in the Cree sense by a Piapot family. You are correct that she is claimed, but that doesn't make her a citizen of the tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I know how she was adopted, as their family is Cree. (EDIT: I even provided the source detailing she was, per Ntawnis) You are more than welcome to tell the Chief of their tribe and the rest of his community she is not a member though. Mwatuangi (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Being a community member doesn't make someone a citizen. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she was adopted by a family of the Piapot tribe does not make her native. She was not legally adopted but as culturally adopted adult. This happens frequently. She is not a member of the Band, nor was she granted status. It makes you a member of that family. Being adopted in that family does not give her the authority to portray herself as native and does not make her Cree. For example Jordan Peterson has been adopted by a native family, but that does not make him native. 129.222.186.137 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to cover the facts. What a tribe considers her to be is a fact about what a tribe considers her to be. Where and when she was born and to who are facts about where she was born and to who. Facts about claims that she has made over the years are facts about claims that she has made over the years. Citizenship of a particular country is a fact determined by the rules of that country and documented by that country. These things do not alter each other. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Did the tribe give her enrollment and does she have a status card? If not, she's an honorary or ceremonial adopted member in a specific Cree family. Shania Twain, who has no Indigenous ancestry, is enrolled as a citizen as part of the Temagami First Nation because her Ojibwe stepfather adopted her as a child and raised her. Wikipedia should state the facts and there's nothing in the media showing Sainte-Marie has a status card or is enrolled.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The rules of *Temagami First Nation for deciding membership through adoption are not applicable to the rules of Piapot First Nation. There are different types of adoptions in Indian Country among First Nations as well, with levels of recognition by gov'ts legally depending on the province, etc. This does not even factor in the varying rules and requirements across tribes. Status cards are also a bad metric for determining tribal membership and belonging as the Indian Act's implementation allowed non-Native women without status who married Native men to gain status and Native women who married men without it to lose it. Such things expiring do not void your rights and tribal status either, even if you lose your card. Colonial systems of adoption like the one you are depending on as "proof" of her membership among her tribe have been actively criticized and should not be seen as the ultimate authority on tribal laws and customs, which have jurisdiction.

If you really want to pursue this and continue to bypass what tribe members with authority say about their people, then you'd look into the type of First Nation adoption she has among Piapot First Nation -mostly likely a custom adoption - and whether or not her adoption through Emile includes enrollment according to the rules of their tribe. I'll let you all speculate as to whether the son of a Treaty 4 Chief adopting her should be considered "official". Mwatuangi (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:CITIZEN: Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not race. If she's not enrolled as a citizen, that claim can't be made on Wikipedia. No source proving citizenship/enrollment has been provided and we have to respect tribal sovereignty when it comes to who is enrolled.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's weird of you to cite that information when I've specifically pointed out in an earlier comment that her race does not matter as to whether a tribe considers her a citizen; strangely, you had no problem mentioning "DNA" as though it factored into tribal discussions earlier. I have also not asked people to claim she is an enrolled citizen based on her being claimed (WP:UNDUE obviously falls into line here) nor added such edits on the article. Mwatuangi (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mwatuangi, you obviously have expertise in this area. So a tribe determines and or documents/non-documents whether someone is a member of the tribe by it's own rules and practices. Do you know whether or not she is a member of that tribe, by it's own rules/practices? North8000 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know if she’s legally enrolled in it as that would depend on whether she was registered at the appropriate time by her adoptive parents according to the laws they have. I wouldn’t suggest we should speak on her enrollment status until we find out.

-

Culturally, however, she’s explicitly claimed- Ntawnis said they knew she wasn’t related by blood so it wasn’t ancestry- by their laws according to their Chief, and the article conveys as much already by quoting them so I don’t think we need to add anything else until they provide us with more info as I can’t speak for them. What I’ve discussed so far on the talk page are just my personal thoughts.

-

I have seen a post from Ntawnis claiming she and her family plan to respond to some of the things claimed by the documentary -Ntawnis has said people are now attacking her family personally- so this isn’t over yet. Mwatuangi (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying she's not honorary adopted, so I'm not sure what else from the Piapot family needs to be included in the article. If there's a DNA test proving some genetic relationship, that would be new information.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If the family formally responds to the claims of the documentary beyond the last statement, it should be included. The page already has featured a lot of people not even tied to this situation commenting on it. Theirs is obviously a given. Mwatuangi (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of their response and what exactly they're responding to. Honestly, Buffy can respond herself (and has already) and the Piapot family shouldn't be used as a shield or spokesman for Buffy's actions, especially those actions she took before she ever met that elderly couple.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You guys can’t include commentary from strangers and go into extensive detail about what that documentary says and then not include responses to its claims by the people it directly affects. That’s not demonstrating a neutral perspective, especially given all the weight you’re giving CBC. Mwatuangi (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The documentary wasn't about the adoptive family.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You literally have mentioned and discussed claims made about her relationship with them several times based on that documentary; the page uses statements from her estranged family members and some associates as evidence. And to top it off, you mentioned a statement made by Sainte-Marie that has yet to be featured in this article but accused me of “shielding” her for pointing out that her adopted family plan to respond to some of that documentary’s claims that are littering the page in detail. They are at the epicenter of this, especially in terms of the controversy surrounding how her Nativeness, which is what the section is supposed to be about.

-

This conveys all the problems with focusing on that documentary so much. Most of the section is not about her at all, but a documentary that investigated her and responses to it. It’s better served with the main arguments and findings summarized briefly in the appropriate order chronologically- possibly even its own article given its content- rather than spread out so extensively. Mwatuangi (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Shield her from what? They are the only people who should be criticising her right now. The rest of us are just spectators to internal affairs. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how being a public figure works.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 00:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

She does not have a status card 129.222.186.137 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Here claims are only now based on adoption.

In her application for citizenship it was based on her past employee/future lawyer's claim she was born in a private house to an unwed women from Piapot and adopted by a couple who'd been in the area. (last page) https://www.scribd.com/document/680295799/Buffy3 This is after, her lawyer claims, 2 years research. 2001:569:7133:1600:ACFF:7D8A:F2D4:8E61 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

https://thewalrus.ca/pretendian-investigations/ <- I think this is a good article regarding mwatuangi's concern (and mine) about sovereignty and non-Cree misunderstanding what it means to be Cree. Perhaps what it says could be incorporated into the page? Mek-laa-ni (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There's numerous articles that include quotes from actual Indigenous people, even the Cree, who say being adopted into a family doesn't make someone Indigenous and they can't claim to represent or speak for those peoples. Cree author, Darrel J. McLeod on adoptions: This doesn’t require a blood or genetic connection, but it doesn’t confer official/legal benefits either. source. This could perhaps be something that is included on Pretendian but it I don't think this article should turn into an opinion piece on that topic of honorary adoptions per WP:UNDUE.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 12:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand not wanting Sainte-Marie's page to become an 'opinion piece', but I think that if we are addressing the issue of Sainte-Marie's identity, it would be irresponsable to claim that Cree Identity is only based in 'ancestry' or 'DNA'.

To address the point that Mr McLeod made, these legal benefits would only be for those recognised by the colonial state of Canada, and probably only conferred to those with 'status cards' (I think, I will admit, I am much more familiar with the legal framework for Indigenous peoples within the USA). I am sure you can freely admit that there are Native people not enrolled in tribes (Maybe they lack the BQ, maybe these people really were 'adopted out'), and that limiting identifying as Indigenous to only within the legal framework is exactly the issue here.

To be clear, I think the CBC's investigation of Sainte-Marie's origins is pretty damning. I think that she most likely did lie about such things, but I think it is a disservice to all Indigenous people to act as if genetics is the be-all, end-all. I am not saying she is Native/Indigenous, but I am saying she (probably) is Cree, and I think we should address such complications in her identity in the page. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:SOAPBOX and shouldn't be used to attempt to WP:VALIDate her identity based on an opinion piece. There's already quotes from the Chief and her Cree-adopted family "claiming" her in their own words. Many Cree don't see her as Cree so no point in trying to use this article to define something that's outside the scope of the article like BQ issues, who is enrolled and who's not part of the entire Cree nation, etc.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 13:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I did not mean to suggest that we attempt to validate her identity based on an opinion piece or to soapbox, I just thought that the page might benefit from a more equal balance of info. If we are quoting "Cree author Darrel J. McLeod", we could just as well quote "Cree author Michelle Cyca".

Perhaps we would be better served if we separated these points, we could have a section on her 'Cree identity' and a 'controversy' section. The Piapot First Nation has stated that according to Cree customs Sainte-Marie is accepted as Cree, so why not let the page reflect these customs?

Also, is there a way I can access the source for the Mcleod quote you are citing? it seems to be behind a paywall... Mek-laa-ni (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for carefully putting in any solid fact that we come up with. Regarding your "Piapot First Nation has stated that according to Cree customs Sainte-Marie is accepted as Cree" seems like a pretty sweeping statement and we should put in the particulars regarding that. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the last point. It's very easy for people to conflate being accepted culturally and actually being ethnically a part of that group through that kind of language, let alone invite assumptions about whether or not they're enrolled in a Nation. Being claimed can mean many things -sometimes includes enrollment, other times doesn't, or even makes it irrelevant(mine don't even use one). I feel just keeping the approach that has been used by continuing to quote him and her family specifically re: her being claimed rather than declaratively stating she's Cree satisfies them without requiring us to speculate. Mwatuangi (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you were right, I think I got mixed up. There are a lot of sources saying she is a member of the Piapot community and family, but none confirming that means she is Cree... I was just making assumptions it seems.

I am not sure why I said that anyway, my point was just I thought some information from that article could be incorporated. If you don't agree, that is ok. I don't think it would make the page soapboxy or that it would be validating untrue things, I thought it could make the page more balanced, but I do see what you are saying about it possibly making the page read more like an opinion piece. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a balanced perspective in a controversy section is fine as long as we are clear in what is being said based on what we can confirm. Obviously whatever we believe re: her status according to the family, etc. is irrelevant so that neutrality should be emphasized when we report on them, I think. Mwatuangi (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

How should this article properly acknowledge Buffy’s continued claims of Indignity (or now being an “Indian”) in spite of historical facts to the contrary?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7037406 2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If she still claims it, that conflicts with even her official website, which deleted parts of her biography that claimed to be born on a reservation a couple of weeks ago. Old version, current version.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted that one (re the 2023 site changes). There is still a lot of people that believe that she is Indigenous or Indian now and this back and forth editing will end up continuing as long as she doesn't unfortunately completely acknowledge the reality that she is not Indigenous or Indian.

So there will continue to be 2 sides of this story. There will be a long documented body of unreferenced articles with her shifting stories of being Indigenous by birth, then by adoption. Her claims of Indigeneity have been documented preadoption which is a problem for the Indigenous by adoption narrative she continues with in the media.

Posting her side/s of the story in some way either within the article or an addition page? may in some way satisfy, what I think is fairness, an obligation to acknowledge her truths as they have evolved and may offer a more balanced article.

IMO I don't think the article fully covers her story and it's evolution as told by Buffy and leaves the reader in a place where her shifting narrative is not fully explored and laid out so it is clearly obvious that she is not telling the truth. Unfortunately she has told so many stories of how she is Indigenous it would be hard to pick one. 2001:569:7134:1600:2861:80AF:690F:4BBD (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I read through the whole thread of ‘Talk’ and very much in line with Mwatuangi, I suggest the following changes. It does not do everything justice. As the page reads now, in particular the subsection ‘False claims of identity’ just re-tells the documentary and it may need to be told slightly different:

“is an American singer..” should be corrected:

“A singer-songwriter with US citizenship though adopted in into the Piapot tribe of Canada”

“There has been numerous calls to rescind the awards she won while falsely claiming an Indigenous identity,” should be corrected:

“Since her ancestry has been disputed there has been calls to rescind awards she has won,”

“was born at” should be corrected:

“is claimed to have been born”

“where she claims to have graduated as one of the top ten students of her class”

This claim is irrelevant or minor compared to other more serious claims made in the existing version of this article I suggest to delete it.

The subheading ‘False claim of Indigenous Identity’ should be phrased neutrally and without taking sides. First of all, Buffy has an indigenous identity. She is adopted into the Piapot 60 years ago and has in articles and her most recent biography recognised that she has two families. She is a highly respected and recognised member of her Piapot family also after the CBS October controversy, her ancestry, is another matter. So, I sugest to phrase the section subheading like this:

“Debate around claims of Indigenous ancestry” (notice the difference between ancestry and identity, ancestry is not the same thing as identity, as several has noted)

Buffy has provided inconsistent narratives over the years, as several also has noted in the thread. A recent source may be included: In a recent interview with Rick Rubin, 2020, she answers ‘maybe’ to the question. I think it would be fair to refer to the inconsistency instead of cherry picking answers that fit with the ‘false claim’ and ‘pretendian’ angle, which is not a neutral way of dealing with this controversy. Also, I do not find the claim in the two noted sources: her own web page, as well as the Andrea Warner text/biography. It is formulated more openly in Warner. Yes, you can find statements with a lot of ‘I was told’, or ‘I was’, or ‘maybe (Rubin, 2020). I think it is better just to make this inconsistency apparent (I realised that her own page has been modified, which is why I could not find the statement).

After the first 7 lines the rest of the section basically summarises the documentary’s narrative. It can stay, but It kind of says that this Wiki page is completely mirroring the documentary (as others have noted) and not other ways of narrating Buffy’s life. I suggest having the section shortened and instead link to the Fifth Estate documentary.

Maybe those just watching the Fifth Estate documentary should take 26 minutes to listen to Kim Wheeler and Drew-Hayden Taylor, also on CBC as a very nuanced response to the controversy:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/the-emotional-fallout-of-buffy-sainte-marie-revelations-1.7013244

One could also refer to Buffy’s own video response to the Fifth Estate documentary.

I am sorry I cannot find time to go in and do suggested edits to this myself. But throughout this long tread, Mwatuangi has provided a more nuanced approach. I do not see it as ‘shielding’, and I hope his/her/their knowledge and ways of phrasing could become part of the page. And I sense that particularly he/she/their can do it better than me! Anders hog hansen (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This reference could be included somewhere near the end of this section. It definitely gives some great context to this section,

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/buffy-sainte-marie-pretendian-native-canada-keeler-18508936.php 2001:569:7134:1600:1DBC:9C83:F843:95C7 (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

have you read here birth stories section on this page? would you consider her to be a reliable source? 2001:569:7134:1600:1DBC:9C83:F843:95C7 (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the a place to cover her ongoing denial of the facts?

She has a story to tell. I'm just not sure where it fits in trying to provide a truthful article. I would think prefaced with "Buffy falsely claims" similar to how it is addressed on Trunpd wiki.

https://cfrc.ca/news-events/news/buffy-sainte-marie-issues-statement-of-response-to-cbc-s-the-fifth-estate 2001:569:7134:1600:9192:17A:C761:3A62 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO and doesn't have to use her PR statement to write "her truth". Per MOS:CITIZEN, tribal citizenship is a status bestowed by the tribal nation and a ceremonial adoption is not considered citizenship or enrollment in the tribe, therefore the lead sentence will not be changed to anything that mentions her ceremonial adoption. She has American citizenship only. She doesn't have an Indian status card or Canadian citizenship.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I just wasn't sure what the policy was. She does offer a rebuttal to this documentary. It IMO ignores reality but it gives her side/her truth. Providing it creates a resource that contains a dueling false narrative. Not providing it opens the article up to accusations of biased.

Trump's page deals with this by including a False or misleading statements section. 2001:569:7134:1600:6591:FE16:1E67:F167 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The basis for her entire career has been false or misleading in some regard so putting it into "one section" isn't going to work for this article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 07:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch on those ‘journalistic neutrality’ edits.

What are your thoughts on how to handle this? Just keep reverting edits.

IMO Buffy is not going to change her narrative. There will be ‘her truth’ and the truth. Admitting that her career was based on owning an indigenous identity and being the victim of (insert false claim) will continue to motivate people to come to her defence with edits. 2001:569:7134:1600:ADE2:208A:D59F:A0A8 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Mwatuangi any updates on how the page shuld handle her claim to Indigenity based on her Piapot adoption now she's removed it from her site, the chief wants to see DNA and an article that details her adoption directly from Emile Piapot has been posted on this page? 2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO we should just cover everything of significance in a straightforward manner. I don't think that there are any big current "2 side" debates except on some terminology nuances which are easily addressed as such. A comparison between the established new or newly visible information and previous (now abandoned or no longer asserted) claims is not a "debate". Have a straightforward section on false identity claims and how they came to be discovered. A section on related criticisms. The latter should be informative intelligent stuff, not seeking out hard-hitting value-laden quotes against her. Her life's work and the good that it did and enjoyment that it provided remains the same even if did get a boost and more visibility from her false claims. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO Unfortunately her life's work and the good that it did and the enjoyment that it provided is also debatable. It is an argument Buffy and those defending her are focusing on though. Interviews and articles could be referenced here that put forward that argument, I've read and heard them. "Look at how much Buffy has done for Indigenous people" and Buffy has been the first to put forward that narrative if you look at her life story. Her recent defense of false claim of being Indigenous includes this narrative.

The harms are already somewhat flushed out in the Pretendian wikipedia article and covered in the prelude to the honorary awards section so I won't go into them or say they need to be referenced more in the article. But it definitely shouldn't be ignored as it is a HUGE part of the Buffy story.

In Canada a similar argument has been made by a Conservative Senator Lynn Beyak who lamented the positive experiences and 'good deeds' of administrators at residential schools and said that was being ignored when telling the residential school story. In the US Ron Desantis put forward the argument that we shouldn't forget the benefits Black people got from slavery. This is Buffy's argument in a nutshell in the many articles that could be referenced. Forget that I took recognition, awards, opportunity, money, etc that could have went to real Indigenous people and all the harm that you now know I've done. That should be excused because in doing so, look at how much I've done for Indigenous people.

In the end, providing an article with verifiable factual information pertaining to Buffy Sainte Marie should be the goal. The past versions of this article were not that. Listing off all her accomplishments should be balanced with the unpleasant facts that prove she is a fraud. Whether the ends justify the means in terms of the harm that she's done and the good that she achieved doing it, that judgement can be left to the reader. [Special:Contributions/2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C|2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C]] (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. But my point (briefly) is that we should be not be having "the bad cancels the good" or "the good cancels the bad" thought processes affect the article. We should just report on the good and the bad in a straightforward manner. Also, cover criticisms but not seek out content free bashing type quotes. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the information that may come across as taking a ‘hit’ at Buffy’s good or social activism may not really be that. The more I read about Buffy’s social activism, the more I seen a pattern. The causes she took on often came along with a story that related to her. She was always the victim. It reads as though she was owning and telling other peoples stories as if they were her own. Granted real indigenous people were being victimized, the pattern of her stepping forward as champion of the Indigenous people was more often self-serving. Was she a social activist when she played Indian on Sesame St? Or when she claimed that she was the victim of the sixties scoop, was this so she could do some more social activism?

Buffy has a lot of stories that were once taken at face value. Presenting her as a social activist, as the article does currently, is I think debatable and not just as a ‘hit’ on Buffy. Maybe it was both? Perhaps she thought Indigenous people needed a champion and by playing indigenous she could be some kind of champion. If this is her truth, she really could have done this without accepting all the awards.2001:569:7134:1600:45F5:5749:DCBD:4EC2 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life

Suggested edit

From

In 1964, while on a trip to the Piapot Cree reserve (in Canada) for a powwow, she was adopted by the youngest son of Chief Piapot, Emile Piapot, and his wife, Clara Starblanket Piapot in accordance with Cree Nation tradition.

To In 1963 Buffy reported that she frequently visits the home of her tribe on the PiaPot reserve. In 1964, while on a trip to the Piapot Cree reserve (in Canada) for a powwow, she was adopted by the youngest son of Chief Piapot, Emile Piapot, and his wife, Clara Starblanket Piapot in accordance with Cree Nation tradition.

ref: https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=eNgIAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=piapot

Gives more context to the adoption account. 2001:569:7134:1600:2861:80AF:690F:4BBD (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of such an expansion but it includes an unexplained assertion that they are "her tribe". Also a statement of "Buffy reported..." does give attribution but based on other misstatements is less meaningful. North8000 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read Jacqueline Keeler's latest piece on this and she claims Buffy was adopted in 1961

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/buffy-sainte-marie-pretendian-native-canada-keeler-18508936.php

In Buffy's latest bio she states it was 1964 when she was adopted.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Buffy_Sainte_Marie/m2JmDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=biography+buffy+sainte+marie&printsec=frontcover

I'm not sure where Keeeler got this date from but I respect her research abilities and as far as Buffy's recollection goes. 2001:569:7134:1600:1DBC:9C83:F843:95C7 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I was able to find an article on newspapers.com from the October 13, 1964 issue of The Leader Post from Regina.

“A highlight of her life came two years ago when she was adopted by the Plains Cree - a tribe of her own people”

https://www.newspapers.com/image/495903536/?terms=Buffy%20piapot%20adoption&match=1

An obituary of one of her adopted Cree family confirms there was a likely adoption but the accounting of it only seems to rely on Buffy for details which don’t appear to be entirely accurate.

2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

another date given for her adoption in Piapot was at 18, so 1959.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Interpreting_Cultures/T1gBDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=buffy+sainte+marie+adopted+at+powwow&pg=PA232&printsec=frontcover 2001:569:7134:1600:1DBC:9C83:F843:95C7 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(1964 Oct. 13) The Sault Star, Sault St. Marie, Ontario/newspapers.com (subscription)

Buffy states she was adopted into the Piapot 2 years ago (1962)

The only record I could find (1963, July 22 North Bay Nugget/newspapers.com) where Buffy will be appearing at the upcoming Manitoulin Powwow was in 1963. 2001:569:7134:1600:1DBC:9C83:F843:95C7 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Buffy has also stated this adoption took place on a visit to Piapot and also at a powwow in an Ontario. This information appears to be combined in the article. It was either one or the other, not at a powwow on Piapot. Given the inconsistencies with accounting of this adoption and the dates given for her adoption I think it should be edited.

From

In 1964, while on a trip to the Piapot Cree reserve (in Canada) for a powwow, she was adopted by the youngest son of Chief Piapot, Emile Piapot, and his wife, Clara Starblanket Piapot in accordance with Cree Nation tradition.

To

At some time between 1959 and 1964, she was adopted by the youngest son of Chief Piapot, Emile Piapot, and his wife, Clara Starblanket Piapot.

This is a more accurate account of the adoption based on the records. 2001:569:7134:1600:DEB:74D5:7BB8:C43 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole section where she is quoted on her thoughts on the Baha’i religion does not really add anything to this article. It mentions on her many ways of supporting the Baha’i faith but then says she’s lot religious. What does this add? 2001:569:7134:1600:C412:4316:B35C:539A (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It actually makes sense that she was adopted at the 1963 Ontario powwow as her shift from micmac to cree identity in her birth stories takes place that late 1963. In July she is micmac. The powwow takes place in August. In December she is Cree. 2001:569:7134:1600:3008:E48A:D349:C4A9 (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

She still hasn't made the shift in Oct...but it comes. 2001:569:7134:1600:3008:E48A:D349:C4A9 (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this update? The facts indicate Buffy was given an Indian name by Emile at the 1963 Ontario powwow. The powwow Buffy claims she was adopted at in several other accounts. The article states this took place on Piapot. The reference listed is a quote from documentary on Buffy. There is no way to access the information from the linked reference but I have watched the doc on YouTube and in it her first biographer claims she met Emile at a 1964 powwow in Ontario and then Emile’s granddaughter claims that Buffy was invited back to the Piapot reserve because she told Emile that she was adopted out of Craven Sask. When they came back to Piapot they couldn’t find any records/they were missing so her grandfather adopted her. This is what is in the doc that is referenced stated, not what is contained in the Wikipedia article. The facts based on Emile”s first hand account and other newspaper articles tell account for the adoption differently in process and timeline. In any event, the information in the currently Wikipedia article is incorrect and unsupported by the current reference. 2001:569:7134:1600:45F5:5749:DCBD:4EC2 (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Buffy’s claim adoption was at Ontario powwow was in the Dec 19 1964 issue of the Coventry Evening Telegraph (newspapers.com subscription) 2001:569:7134:1600:ADE2:208A:D59F:A0A8 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The CBC article references a quote from Buffy’s bio that the family changed their name from SantaMaria to Sainte Marie due to Italian immigrant bias. Quite possible, but given that it can’t be verified it is questionable. I’d remove it until it can be verified in some way. 2001:569:7134:1600:E8F1:4A67:369A:E2A (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The name change would have been post 1950 as they were listed as Santamaria in the 1950 US Census. 2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It was not changed. The family used St. Marie in 1941 (and likely earlier) as it is listed as a name also used on Buffy's birth certificate, Albert's obit and grave stone. This does mean though that the family did not change their name because of anti-Italian sentiment post war as they used the name St. Marie, pre-war...and that's a fact. The following is false information in the current article:

Her family changed their surname from Santamaria to the more French-sounding “Sainte-Marie” due to anti-Italian sentiment following the Second World War.[2]

2001:569:7134:1600:34C8:55A4:D093:DA72 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is written based on sources, not original research. Source says anti-Italian sentiment.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the CBC doc also uses information that is based on references that solely rely on Buffy's statements. She is right that there are errors in the report. Unfortunately for her, the errors aren't to her benefit. They disprove her statements. Leave it as quoted in the reference, but if you look at the birth certificate used in the doc to disprove her birth story claim, it also disproves her story about why the family name change. It was an oversight on the CBC's part. There are other errors in the CBC doc but they're not included in this wikipedia article so I won't bother going into them. 2001:569:7134:1600:872:93AD:E946:D556 (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is the reference in the CBC documentary that her family used the name St. Marie in 1941. I think we can agree that wwii took place after 1941. The CBC video and article used Buffy’s claim of Italian-bias post wwwi. The actual original birth document that is shown in the video list St. Marie as a name they also used in 1941. I hope this helps.

Time: 20:38 In the fifth estate episode on Buffy. I can’t post a YouTube link on this page but I take it you’ve watched it and are familiar with it. IMO maybe the CBC was more concerned about the lies in regards to her indigenous ancestory that this was overlooked or maybe they could only cover so many lies in one episode. They didn’t mention her documented claims that she was born in Maine and lived on a Cree reserve there. 2001:569:7134:1600:45F5:5749:DCBD:4EC2 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Should we seek partial protection of this page?

We've recently had a lot of outlandish (without discussion) edits towards the two extremes from varying IP's. At one extreme, deleting all of the newly discovered solidly sourced information and substituting it with the old false information and on other end adding bashfest type wording. I've been reverting those. I've warned one of them (including that this is an official contentious topic). Should we seek partial protection of this page? Maybe for a month? North8000 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's warranted.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 20:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think page protection until a little time has passed seems reasonable. Tkbrett (✉) 20:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes.... once all this is settled down we can make a neutral article. Moxy- 21:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

by neutral I'm hoping you mean a factual article. 2001:569:7134:1600:9126:FD54:CFCA:609C (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I requested it North8000 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that protection is warranted, but I think the text first needs redrafting to achieve a more neutral stance with respect to the claims to Indigenous ancestry. The CBC investigation certainly appears conclusive but it is a single source and the evidence presented has not been subject to extensive scrutiny. The Canadian Encyclopedia entry provides a much more professional, balanced description of the controversy. Wikipedia should follow its example. KitePerson (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO the Canadian Enclyclopedia article is terrible in many places. In some places it has misleading spinfest wording, in other areas it lists dubious baseless claims of hers as fact, in the voice of that encyclopedia. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Is there a reliable source that shows Buffy Sainte-Marie is Indigenous outside of her ever changing claims? Even the chief of the tribe she once claimed wants her to take a DNA test. She has deleted the claims from her biography of being Piapot Cree and if she really disagreed with the CBC investigation, she would taken them to court. CBC hasn't retracted a word from their investigation. Too many of those kinds of sites restate her claims as facts and that's problematic. She's not even Canadian. Per WP:ETHNICITY, First Nation status is one of citizenship, which she also doesn't have.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have done a lot of research on Buffy. The article is problematic and could be condensed or expanded. Unfortunately Kite, there in no neutrality issue here. There issue is between facts and fiction.

References that rely on Buffy quotes are problematic (docs, artciles, etc). Even references to some dates are unreliable on her site. References that provide facts that are independently verifiable (awards she won, marriages, etc) are not an issue.

Relying on the CBC article as a reference is not entirely necessary Kite and this could address some of your concerns, There is plenty of independent easily verifiable information that Buffy is straight out lying and has been now and since the early 60s. Read through this Talk page and consider the information, much of it is Buffy’s own words, not the CBC’s assertions. 2001:569:7134:1600:E8F1:4A67:369A:E2A (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is with certain choices of words, the inclusion of some irrelevant details in an apparent effort to bombard the reader with "evidence" of the claim to Indigeneity, and the structuring of certain sections in a way that foregrounds the "false claim". For example, given her adoption by Piapot First Nation, the section "False claim of Indigenous Identity" should be changed to "... Indigenous Ancestry" because at present it seems Wikipedia is making a judgement that negates the validity of the First Nation adoption, which smells pretty colonialist. The "False claim" section itself is overlong and includes a lot of unnecessary details, such as the DNA test taken by her younger sister, which has no bearing on the question of Sainte-Marie's ancestry. Assertions by family members do not constitute evidence and should probably be omitted altogether from the section (members of dysfunctional families will say anything to discredit one another). I find the term "false claim" itself problematic as well, because it implies an intention to mislead, and at this point I don't think it is at all clear what Sainte-Marie's intentions were, i.e., whether she simply made up the Indigenous connection herself or had been persuaded to believe it by her mother or some other family member.

The "Awards and Honours" section also looks skewed, as it should logically begin with a listing of her awards and honours, but instead it begins with another reference to the CBC investigation, followed by a detailed discussion of the calls made for her Indigenous awards to be rescinded, even including a suggestion that Sainte-Marie is indirectly responsible for Kelly Fraser's death. I don't think a hyperbolic statement like that has any place in a credible encyclopedia. KitePerson (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you except for leaving out informative relevant factual statements which a few of those things might be. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with several on the things you mention Kite.

First, it is a false claim of indigenous identity. In fact it is multiple false claims of indigenous identities. Some of these took place before her Piapot adoption. Buffy, in her own words has claimed to be indigenous, aboriginal, Indian. It is a fact and there is documented information it is valid even if the CBC never reported on it.

Second, neither idigenous identity or ancestory can be conferred onto anyone. The fact that Buffy was adopted into a Cree family is just that, she is part of the family. She does not become indigenous anymore than if a white European was adopted into an African-American family becomes African-American. It is not a matter of colonialism. It is just reality.

Next, false claim does not confer an intention to mislead. A false claim is still a false claim irrespective of intention. Buffy made a false claim, in fact many different false claims. She falsely claimed she was indigenous, she falsely claimed she didn’t know who were parents were to Emile Piapot who then adopted her. She falsely claimed her real parents were French-Canadian, both Micmac, only her her dad was micmac, only her mom was Micmac, both her parents died, were killed in an auto accident, she was adopted, never knew her birth parents, always knew where she was from, never knew was she was from, was taken and put in foster care, was taken as a baby, was taken as an older child, went back and forth to Piapot as a child, was born in Maine on a Cree reserve, the list goes on Kite. All of these claims are false even if the CBC didn’t report on them, her mother told her, if she had a vision, still all false.

I noticed it was changed but I also disagree on the changes to the award section. This should be the prelude and the information in the former prelude is all relavent and factual pertaining to the awards and honours. Much of the the awards and honours are born of Buffy’s claim to being indigenous. This should be explained before the reader sees the list not after the fact. It provide contextual information that is factual and should be read before the list not as an after thought, oh by the way, all those awards, they were awarded under false pretences and real indigenous people lost out in the honours and awards.

Kelly Fraser’s story is but one story and provides some great context on the harms that pretendianism causes to the indigenous community. Placing it after the awards as an after thought is inappropriate.

I am not sure why you are questioning the motivations of edits that include facts relevant to this article. It seems like the edits you are proposing are attempting ‘massage’ the article in ways that remove or minimize the harmful facts. 2001:569:7133:B000:6CD1:D41:E289:D8B8 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Buffy Sainte Marie's Adoption Ceremony

Unfortunately this needs it's own talk page topic. These are the two parties involved and their accounts.

This is Emile Piapot’s account of Buffy’s adoption.

It would have been at the Manitoulin Island powwow. Buffy asked Emile to give her an Indian name, he named her singing bird. “She was glad. Oh she was glad” said Emile.

— (1991 Oct 21) The Leader Post (Newspapers.com)

This is one of Buffy's accounts:

She met Emile at the Ontario powwow and around 1964 she was adopted and given her Cree name Medicine Bird Singing.

— https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Buffy_Sainte_Marie/m2JmDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Other accounts are interesting but the article should pick one of these accounts, Emile's or Buffy's and put this to rest. Not wiki-editor accounts or second hand accounts from relatives or grandchildren. I trust Emile's.

Anticipated Rebuttals:

Emile's Granddaughter claims Buffy came back to the reserve and was adopted.

Answer: Buffy was there. She claims it was at the Maitoulin Powwow.

This is just another hit on Buffy.

Answer: Not at all. You have both people's accounts who were there, not mine. I'm only interested in the facts. The reason I believe Emile's account and not Buffy's is not because she lies. Emile named her Singing Bird and in other accounts Buffy states that this was also the name she was given. Emile's recollection appears to be more accurate.

2001:569:7133:B000:9011:FAF5:DD71:7CA9 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have no idea what you are trying to argue; this is very unorganized and might as well be a forum post. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • you obviously haven't read the talk page and are unfamiliar with the content and history of Buffy's claim to being indigenous. inform yourself then comment. same with your page edits. claiming they bring her story down to one instance ignores 60 years of lies and the damage it has done. again, inform yourself before editing. 2001:569:7133:B000:9011:FAF5:DD71:7CA9 (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I think that the editor was trying to say the above, Drmies. Markup and quoting would have made it far more legible. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you Uncle. IP, you have mucked up this entire talk page with totally unclear comments. I can't tell what's cited, what your words are, what you want. Stuff like "anticipated rebuttals"--what are you writing, a draft for a debating club? And I don't think you understand how my edits are motivated by the WP:BLP. On that note, User:Thivierr and User:Oncamera, you also fail to understand how your edits to the lead are entirely undue and fail to present a proper summary of the article which, as a biography, benefits from chronology. The suggestion that I am removing "critical content" is just plain nonsensical. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
      • I think they meant "critical context" because that's what it is. Readers should have this context of her false claims to Indigenous identity that even she acknowledges when she removed the claims from her official website biography. As such, it's not a violation of WP:BLP as you claim to have this critical context placed in the opening lead paragraph.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
        • Indeed, you fail to understand. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

          The information you are attempting to remove also chronologically places her claims to Indigenous identity (going back to the 1960s) where it should be, in the beginning. Chronologically, it should be in the opening lead as her claims were a huge part of her career until it was recently revealed to be false claims.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

        • Oncamera, yes I did mean "context", thanks. I think people often misunderstand how neutrality works on Wikipedia vs elsewhere. Neutrality doesn't mean we treat every opinion or claim equally. It means we reflect whatever balance exists in reliable sources. Every source that has every covered Saint-Marie made her indigenous identity claims at the beginning of anything written about her, and framed everything in that context, giving the utmost weight. It's hard to find any article written at any time about her, that doesn't mention her being indigenous in the first sentence, until recently, when it's the falsity of the claim that's mentioned first. If you think there's too much concern with her identity, than take your concern up with those reliable sources, not Wikipedia.. --Rob (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

          I was about to write something similar but you hit the nail on the head. Neutrality does not mean a balance between unreliable poorly sourced information that is not factual, but provides a positive perspective and well sourced factual information that may not paint the BLP is a good light. That is not what WP:BLPBALANCE requires. In this case, where a person has claimed to be Indigenous throughout their entire career, if this was not true, that information should be front and center and in the lead paragraph. The idea that it is a chronology issue is curious as this claim came before all of the awards and accomplishments that are currently listed in the first paragrapgh. 2001:569:7133:B000:9011:FAF5:DD71:7CA9 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Career

In the 1990s it mentions her philanthropy. An update could be made to the 2000s.

Her foundation and cradle board project could use some updating. Between 2006 and 2021 the foundation provided no money to indigenous programs in Canada according to bloombergs Chariety Data site (note: confirmation of accuracy of this data should be made through the CRA site. It was unavailable at the time of this posting) https://www.charitydata.ca/charity/the-nihewan-foundation/840654768RR0001/ 2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The foundation 990s distributions range from $0 in 2019 to $5373+ in 2016

https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/details/ (Search by company name: Nihewan Foundation)

I believe this information can help put into context her philanthropy towards Indigenous people and organizations. 2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't analyze primary sources as that's considered WP:original research, I believe. A secondary source that analyzes that information could be used.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

bloomberg's would be the secondary source but they have a disclaimer on accuracy. 2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This part in Career in 1960-1970 in either incorrect or misstated even though many what would be considered reliable sources repeat it. It is not currently sourced in the article.

"She was subsequently named Billboard magazine's Best New Artist."

Her official website claims she won this in 1964.

The only references I could find during that time period was in 1967 when she claims to have been voted Number One new female folk singer in 1965. (1967 Jan 21) The Gazette, Montreal and (1967 Mar 09) Latrobe Bulletin. I was unable to find any mention of either after reviewing the 1964-1965 Billboard Magazines. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Making the introduction flow

Further information: § MOS:FIRSTBIO, and § Opening paragraph lead

Thinking about it, I think that the introduction does flow better if after saying that someone is a "singer-songwriter, musician, and social activist" we proceed to introduce in that same order.

I think that it doesn't work as well structured the other way, which is summary style, where details follow a summary. The journalist's summary style is a poor choice for an encyclopaedia article introduction. We really do not have to try and summarize everything into 1 paragraph, and then summarize that paragraph in its first sentence. Introductions should introduce.

Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The false claims of ancestry has to be in first sentence, or at least first paragraph, as it colors everything else. Somebody who reads just the first part, and sees "Juno Award for Indigenous Artist or Group of the Year" would likely make the assumption Sainte-Marie is actually indigenous based on this. If Sainte-Marie's claims of indigenous identity were valid it would be the very *first* thing we mention. We would (as we did previously) make "Indigenous Canadian" the very first descriptor of her, before everything else, in the first sentence, even before "singer". The fact her claim of being indigenous and Canadian has been debunked doesn't mean these attributes are somehow less important. I do agree flow could be improved, but am not sure of a solution yet (it's hard to make "not" or "false" flow). --Rob (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rob, I don't see why that has to be in the very first sentence, or the very first paragraph. I don't think readers make as many assumptions from one award as you might think, and I also think that readers are likely to read the entire lead (at least at this reasonable length). Nothing is swept under the rug. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies on this.North8000 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To address any chronological concerns the sentence "Some Indigenous..." could be removed and it would be chronologically correct and that would also correct the low problem. That info is in the honors and awards section, but then that should be moved to the top to provide proper context to the awards section. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You could also remove everything after "In 1983..." as that is also in her career and doesn't need to be repeated. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that her Indigenous claims and recent investigation needs to be in the opening lead. Prior to the investigation, her Cree claims were there and chronologically, she made these claims in the 1960s, so it's not out of place. Burying it further down is doing a disservice to readers. She was previously the "first Indigenous person" to win many awards, such as an Oscar, and many people know her for such things. Therefore, her original claims and the investigation should remain in the lead.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. Lets get you to not revert 4 more experienced. Moxy- 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure Drmies was proposing that biography, benefits from chronology. Revision is now 1941 > 1983 > 1997 > 1960. Why put it at the bottom? Doesn't appear to be correct chronologically. The past revision was chronological. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead makes sense to me.... we say what she is originally notable for over decades....then talk about what that notability is based on...then we tlak about the modern problem. Moxy- 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Born in 1940s. Claimed to be indigenous since 1960s. Won awards in 80s, 90s. Revealed not to be indigenous in 2023 would be chronological if that is really the aim of the first paragraph irrespective of how either of us read it. IMHO it reads like the awards are more significant than the claim of being indigenous when not chronological. Grey Owl and Sacheen Littlefeather's page don't have the claim in the first paragraph. Maybe this works better? 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is indicative that purported identity isn't everything or maybe of how oblivious I am but I've always liked her music and it's subjects/lyrics but never even knew that she claimed to be indigenous. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

People having been debating this for almost a year in Indian country/on reddit. A LOT of people were waiting to see what came out of Keeler's work, then the CBC doc. It was pretty conclusive but I don't think some minds will ever change. Buffy was HUGE in the Indian community and still is. She was a role model and championed every cause that meant something to Indigenous people. Unfortunately as it turns out she was a fraud and was telling other people's stories as her own, playing the victim. Some of my family liked her music, but I never cared for it. Her rez accent sounded phoney to me. Looking back at her music now, knowing she was Italian and dressed up playing Indian, all I can do is cringe. I do hope this article in the end provides some factual information about Buffy. Sixty years of lies have made a mess of the Internet and other references. Fiction is fact and fact is fiction. This article should provide the facts, good and bad, and let the reader decide what they think of her life's work. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

False claim of Indigenous Identity

This section could use its own talk section. Please post proposed edits before editing information that denies or affirms the claims in this section or at least comment. It will provide an opportunity to validate the edits.

I’ll start

Sainte-Marie's 2018 authorized biography states she was "probably born" on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan, and throughout her adult life she claimed she was adopted, and does not know where she was born or who her biological parents are.

This could be expanded. Buffy claimed to have been born in Maine on many occasions. See Birth Stories section on this page. This directly contradicts her claim. There are also numerous records of her claiming (not probably) that she was born in Saskatchewan and knew the reason why she was ‘adopted’. She has been claiming she was born in Craven or Piapot throughout her adulthood and it is likely the reason why she was adopted in the Piapot based on her own account. See birth stories. This is not CBC, her brother, people out to get her making this up. This is Buffy providing this information and it is opposes her current assertions.

I would add that in 1980 after her assistant and future lawyer conducted 2 years research she wrote that Buffy was born in a private house in Craven, Sask and was adopted by a couple in the area at the time. See birth stories.

It would be appropriate to add this information after the current info. It gives more context to the claim that she has never known where she was from or remove the information as it is not true. 2001:569:7134:1600:ADE2:208A:D59F:A0A8 (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

(1991 Oct 21) The Leader Post

This is Emile Piapot’s account of Buffy’s adoption. It would have been at the Manitoulin Island powwow in 1963. Buffy asked Emile to give her an Indian name, he named her singing bird. “She was glad. Oh she was glad” said Emile.

Newspapers.com (subscription) 2001:569:7134:1600:C895:C15A:ACFA:E487 (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

These are Buffy's accounts. One in Ontario in 1962 where she was given her Indian name. She told them she was adopted and said they thought she could be a lost relative. (National Post Oct. 22, 2012 / Newspapers.com)

The account in her latest bio is that she met Emile at the Ontario powwow and around 1964 she was adopted and given her Cree name Medicine Bird Singing.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Buffy_Sainte_Marie/m2JmDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

Unfortunately the most detailed description Buffy gave that I come across I can no longer find. It described her adoption in much greater detail, mystical, magical, it was quite touching.

There seems to be some discrepancies in her accounting of her Cree name. In some articles she is Singing Bird (the name Emile PiaPot gave her) and later accounts it is listed as Medicine Bird Singing (https://chatelaine.com/living/buffy-sainte-marie-at-80/). Would her later honorary doctorates account for the name change perhaps?

In Emile Piapots obituary Buffy was noted as a daughter (The Leader Post Jan 11, 1995 / Newspapers.com) 2001:569:7134:1600:3008:E48A:D349:C4A9 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Bottom section on the PiaPot Chief's response needs an update. Chief wants a DNA test.

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2288121923847 2001:569:7134:1600:3008:E48A:D349:C4A9 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include more of her false claims right in the opening paragraph of this section? Focusing on her one claim of being born on Piapot and adopted at 2 or 3 leads to the argument that she was adopted by the Cree so she is indigenous.

Perhaps including some of the other claims in her birth stories (like living on frozen potatoes) or being born in Maine or the various ages she was adopted or removed from the Canadian government or that her parent/s died can broaden the scope of her claims and leads to less edits over being adopted by Piapot is really the issue.

If being adopted by the Piapot made her indigenous, why the other stories to support the Piapot birth story? 2001:569:7134:1600:60FB:96C8:4232:32DF (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Buffy Sainte-Marie's has removed the following claims from her website, as per this CBC News update:

"is believed to have been born in 1941 on the Piapot First Nation reserve in Saskatchewan and taken from"
"Cree singer-"
"received the Native Americans in Philanthropy's Louis T. Delgado Award for Native American Philanthropist of the Year."

"the first Indigenous person ever to win an Oscar for writing the hit song, Up Where We Belong from an Officer and a Gentleman." -- Usedbook (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Now that Buffy St. Marie is removing these claims on her website, it appears quite likely to me at least that she is really just another Pretendian--a person who claimed to be Indian when she is not one. She just dismissed her longtime alleged Piapot First Nation roots with a click of a computer keyboard. Its tough for most Indigenous peoples of Canada to lose another hero. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Expect more updates. Awards that were obtained as indigenous. Indigenous charity that raises and disperses how much money? 2001:569:7134:1600:E8F1:4A67:369A:E2A (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is pure speculation so NO:SOAPBOX and delete if inappropriate but after researching this story and trying to figure out why this narrative has lasted in the age of the Internet, the following is a one viable possibility.

You don’t shoot the golden goose.

Buffy’s birth family has said they just thought it was part of her career play. Emile Piapot told a newspaper that Buffy started financially supporting them post ‘adoption’.

Buffy has made a career of it but a lot of people surrounding Buffy continue to financially benefit, family, lawyers, agents, record companies, documentary creators, biographers, the list goes on.

Some people have a vested interest in this Wikipedia article reverting to the past narrative. A lot of websites have made little to no effort to correct the facts. Wikipedia is one of the only sites that have taken big strides to provide the correct information. 2001:569:7134:1600:E8F1:4A67:369A:E2A (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to acknowledge the accomplishments of some of those who have contributed to telling Buffy's story?

- Blair Stonechild - Author of Buffy Sainte-Marie: It's My Way

2013

Saskatoon Book Awards: The Rasmussen and Charowsky Aboriginal Peoples' Writing Award winner for Buffy Sainte-Marie: It's My Way.

- Andrea Warner - Author of Buffy Sainte-Marie: The Authorized Biography

2023

Canadian Screen Awards Nominee Best Writing, Documentary for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

Canadian Screen Awards Nominee Barbara Sears Award for Best Editorial Research for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

International Emmy Awards after winning in the Arts Programming for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

- Madison Thomas - Director

2022

Women of Wiff Selection for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry It On

Directors Guild of Canada Excellence in Documentary

2023

Canadian Screen Awards Winner Best Direction, Documentary Program for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

Canadian Screen Awards Nominee Best Writing, Documentary for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

Canadian Screen Awards Nominee Barbara Sears Award for Best Editorial Research for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

International Emmy Awards after winning in the Arts Programming for Buffy Sainte Marie - Carry it On

- Jennifer Croll - Editor

2019

Editor's of Canada's Tom Fairley Award for Editorial Excellence for Buffy Sainte Marie: The Authorized Biography 2001:569:7134:1600:CC85:5E19:EE64:FA7C (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Leoboudv, re: Buffy's offical bio update and your page revision. It was mid-Nov, after Nov 07 but before Nov. 17. 2001:569:7133:B000:3046:3D1:980:F9 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

She identifies as indigenous. The Piapot Crees adopted her. End of story.

It has always been commonplace among some indigenous American nations to adopt non-nationals as full-fledged members of their nation. Sometimes the captors would kill their captive; sometimes when they admired the warriors they would adopt them as complete and valued members of the nation. White and Black captives were adopted as well. This is exactly what happened in Ste.-Marie's case. Her subsequent misrepresentations are a separate issue. Given her activism, it does not surprise or disturb me that she would tell the white folks what she thought they wanted to hear. At any rate, it has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of her indigenous nationality. Jackaroodave (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but this isn't the 1500s and tribes have changed how enrollment works since being forced onto reservations. She was ceremoniously adopted by a single family, not by the whole nation. Wikipedia has a policy that reflects modern times and tribal sovereignty of modern nations: Native American / First Nation is based on citizenship, and Sainte-Marie has no citizenship or status card per MOS:CITIZEN. Plus the chief has asked her to prove she's Cree thru a DNA test. She no longer claims to be Indigenous on her website, having removed her claims of being born on a Cree reservation and removing from her awards section such things as "first Indigenous person to win an Oscar" etc.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 12:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In Canada we fallow a modern understanding of identity... based on traditional Indigenous practices....not colonial laws on citizenship. " Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. As acting Chief Ira Lavallee of Piapot First Nation told the CBC: “When it comes to Buffy, we can’t pick and choose which part of our culture we decide to adhere to … We do have one of our families in our community that did adopt her. Regardless of her ancestry, that adoption in our culture to us is legitimate.”[3].Not sure how anyone outside the community can cancel that fact. Is there debate on her claims Yes' but that does not cancel history. This may change but we are just waiting ...we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Moxy- 16:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That is incorrect. In Canada this is what we follow. It's from the AFN. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup "Custom Adoption" First Nation customary laws is what we have here. Moxy- 19:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

And per that it requires "the applicant must submit documentation that was signed by a Band Council and Elders of the band. They must state that the adopted individual was adopted in accordance with the customs of the band of the adoptive parent(s)". This is responding to the OP of this section. Elsewhere I argued against wording that says that any claim of any type of indigenous identity was false. This may appear self-conflicting but isn't. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Shania Twain is an example of a non-Indigenous person who was legally adopted by her First Nation Ojibwe stepfather and was given tribal citizenship. She is legally registered as being "50% Ojibwe" and can work in the US without issue because of the Jay Treaty and her father being full-blooded Ojibwe. Even with all of that, she has said she has never used that status to claim to be the first Indigenous person to win awards, "I have never promoted myself as a Native artist. I've never flaunted it or exploited it. I would never do that." The media may have referred to her as Ojibwe, which they wouldn't be wrong by the tribal laws, but actually being able to claim an Indigenous identity is another thing. Even she didn't do that to promote her career when she has a status card. Buffy Sainte-Marie is not a citizen of the Piapot Cree Nation and her adoption is just ceremonial.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Moxy, you are actually combining two different arguments into one. It's kind of like a red herring. 1. Buffy was adopted into Emile Piapot's family. On that, you are correct and there is no actual dispute anyone has made to that. No need to argue that one. 2. Because Buffy was adopted in Emile Piapot's family she is Indigenous. On that one, you are incorrect. Yes, Buffy was given and Indian name after she asked Emile to do so at a powwow. Buffy has described this as her 'adoption'. This isn't typically how one is adopted but let's say that she was adopted because of this. She started to visit Emile's family and provide financial support over many years and became like a daughter to Emile and his wife and like family to the rest of Emile's family. That is all true. Even if all of that is true, that still does not make her Indigenous, obviously by ancestry as she claimed but not even by Identity. If Buffy was abandoned as a little Italian girl, raised in the community, grew up with the traditions and customs and was adopted into the community she could reasonably claim she was the adopted daughter of an Indigenous family. Buffy was raised a little Italian-English girl who chose to pretend her family didn't exist so she pretend to be an Indian. This all started before she met Emile at that powwow and became a born-again Cree. You are correct on another thing, you can't cancel history. 2001:569:7133:B000:3046:3D1:980:F9 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Jackarodave, just to correct you on equating Buffy's adoption to that of captured warriors. Emile's story differs, but let's go with one of Buffy's claims and a similar claim by his granddaughter of why she was adopted. Both claim that she told Emile that she was adopted out of Craven, Saskatchewan. Emile invited her back to the reserve. They went and tried to find her records. After they were unsuccessful in finding her records, Emile adopted her into the family. We now know that the reason they couldn't find any records because she wasn't adopted out of Craven or born in Saskatchewan. She was pretending she was Indigenous and lied to Emile and so he adopted her. This is much different than a captured warrior being adopted. 2001:569:7133:B000:3046:3D1:980:F9 (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Is there consensus to separate "Since the early 1960s, Sainte-Marie has claimed to have Indigenous Canadian ancestry, but a 2023 investigation by CBC News concluded that she was born in the United States and is of Italian and English descent" from the opening lead paragraph? It's been there until a recent editor decided it's not important enough to be in the lead. They should be using the talk page to change consensus before edit warring but I'll start it for them.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)rt

Lead should be in chronological order. Moxy- 02:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not a requirement per WP:LEAD.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 02:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't need a rule for common sense situations..... like article on indigenous peoples they doesn't start with European colonization.Moxy- 02:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can start with the fact she was born to European parents in Massachusetts before lying about having an Indigenous Canadian identity like it was. That's chronological. Glad you agree.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no so-called "consensus" just because someone hasn't changed anything recently. Secondly, I don't appreciate being given an edit-warring warning on my talk page when you are doing exactly the same thing. Thirdly and principally, the opening paragraph should be short and contain basic information about someone or something. It should *not* contain information about other things no matter how otherwise important it is. The recent allegations do not belong in the opening paragraph but in a separate paragraph. That is the appropriate way this information is included. Yahboo (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) 

There was many edits to the lead paragraph and I made a section that was last edited 23 days ago called Opening paragraph lead on this talkpage to discuss a version that people found acceptable. There was no one opposed to the changes, which stayed relatively the same since then. You should self-revert instead of edit warring against consensus.  oncamera  _{< style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)} 02:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that there is a "consensus" is completely disingenuous. There is no consensus so I am not "editing against consensus" as you falsely claim. All you've done previously was to post a comment which has no relevance to this particular issue and which had one reply which also isn't relevant. Your current comments, your own edit-warring, your false claim of there being a consensus and your edit-warring warning on my talk page are all apparent indications to me that you have an assertive and unconstructive attitude of WP:OWN and that you are unwilling to accept changes from other editors even when these changes are or may be improvements and more in accord with MOS principles. Yahboo (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening paragraph changes seem to be more inline with the shift in narrative to meet her updated official site bio. I don't think consensus in required to include the opening facts that her birth certificate, her birth family, her marriage certificate confirm her place of birth and that is the most appropriate place to begin her page. Her false claim of indigenous ancestry is well documented in that section and that's where her claim of birth on the Piapot reserve should reside. No need for that the opening paragraph. 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something more inline with the Iron Eyes Cody lead paragraph would be more appropriate.

Buffy Sainte Marie (Beverly Jean Santamaria; February 20, 1941) is an American songwriter, musician, and social activist of Italian descent who portrayed an Indigenous singer... 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Sacheen Littlefeather opening sentence also includes reference to being a Pretendian as well. The same should apply to Sainte-Marie as it's a huge issue to falsely claim Indigenous identity and win numerous awards and it's something that will be always be with her now.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I would agree after reading that page. Her claim of Indigenous identity is the base of much of her life story, music, recognition, etc. The fact that is not true should probably fall within the lead paragraph. It is just as important, if not more so, than her awards that are listed there. 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edit

From

Since the early 1960s, Sainte-Marie has claimed to have Indigenous Canadiana ancestry

To

Since the early 1960s, Sainte-Marie has claimed to have Algonquin, MicMac (Mi’kmaq) and Plains Cree ancestry 2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I propose replacing her academy award mention in the lead with her 1993 Charles De Gaulle Award for Best International Artist in France. While she is well known for her Academy Award, her 1993 Charles De Gaulle Award was never awarded before or after Buffy won. Not even Celine Dion won this one. It should be noted in the lead paragraph. 2001:569:7133:B000:3C99:21FC:94F:BD0A (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. She is a liar and a fraud that exploited native suffering for her own gain, it is what she will be known for and it overshadows and negates her work, to say nothing of revealing her lack of integrity and character. She took advantage of native suffering almost her entire adult life for financial gain, her unethicalness and evilness should be in the opener. Please include her betrayal of the native people and her exploitation of their living hell in the opening paragraph. 2001:569:6FE4:EDEF:1548:2821:B59D:FC70 (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly all true, but again, the 'Buffy page' of post-CBC documentary was a mishmash of fact and fiction. First Indigenous person to win an Oscar. Fiction. Won an Oscar. Fact. First Indigenous person on Sesame St. Fiction. Was on Sesame St. Fact. What her page needs truly is a good once over to separate what can be verified as a fact from a reputable source. And even then, the reputable source should be reviewed to see if the only evidence they are relying on is a quote from Buffy. She has proven to be an unreliable source.

MANY very reputable sources (PBS/Awards Sites/Encyclopedias) still name her birth location as PiaPot and elsewhere. It would be wonderful if her page could sort through all that and supply factual information. 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Anon's "Parallel Situation" post

The following anon post was placed in the section below, but doesn't seem to fit and disrupts the RFC. --Rob (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Parallel Situation dealing with an Italian American, Iron Eyes Cody wikipedia article. The first paragraph seems to have held without any edit issues.

Proposed First Sentence:

Buffy Sainte Marie (born Beverly Jean Santamaria; February 20, 1941) is American Italian-English and portrayed Native Americans in her roles as singer-songwriter, musician, and social activist.

This covers her entire career throughout the article. 2001:569:7133:B000:3046:3D1:980:F9 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Another variation on the opening paragraph, if it was to remain in it's present form, is to include references after the link to "indigenous identity" and change it to falsely claimed "indigenous identities" that have since been disproven (and link to her birth certificate) as this is a factually correct and indigenous identity is only partially correct. It is much fairer to Buffy to reference her own descriptions of her identities than referencing and article that references an article. She disputes the CBC doc claims but I'm not sure how she can dispute her own claims. There are numerous differing verifiable claims and identities contained in the Birth Stories section of this page. The mention of the CBC news report in 2023 could then be removed as it is detailed in the False claims section of the article. This resolves the issue that some claim the information is not chronological. 2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this. Definitely not posting on my account, but a participant here. This topic is way to divisive. Hence the minimal participation from project participants. 2001:569:7133:B000:3046:3D1:980:F9 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A number of very active participants from that project retired from Wikipedia just before the Buffy news came out (for unrelated reasons). You can't assume a lack of participation means they are feeling divisive on the topic.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The news on Buffy came out almost a year ago. I have discussed it with others but I won’t put words in their mouth. You’re correct not to assume. 2001:569:7133:B000:3C99:21FC:94F:BD0A (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References Section

I'm not sure who removed the section above this that had the Pretendian wiki link. But that should go back. Anyways. References: Has anyone taken the time to look through the References section? It really needs a once over. Too many updates needed to list. What is the procedure for updating references that are broken, no longer have that information or are no longer correct? 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I restored the see also section. Editors can add the template {{obsolete source}} next to the sources that include outdated information per Template:Obsolete source. See that article for more information, including adding a reason if applicable. And replace the obsolete source with newer ones if possible so that warning can be removed.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 06:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a look. 2001:569:7134:1600:D40A:3A61:E325:F6E6 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ref 11 goes to nothing. i'd remove that info or find another reputable independent source to link to. i looked and couldn't find any in old newspapers (using google books). perhaps someone with a newspapers.com account could find something. most of the information i could find came with a false narrative of going back to her place of birth, not reliable. 2001:569:7134:1600:D41F:F7DB:2A09:5F87 (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

i did find an interesting reference that came up that was published in 1963 (a year before her visit to piapot) when I searched for buffy visits piapot reserve.

https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=eNgIAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=piapot2001:569:7134:1600:D41F:F7DB:2A09:5F87 (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

this is the link for ref 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1nNbR791go 2001:569:7134:1600:D41F:F7DB:2A09:5F87 (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There are still some references that could use some attention. 1 false info. 2 and 70 are the same. 3. false info/ref doesn't support info in article. 9. ref link contains false info, more accurate refs available. 10. can link to acad award site. 11. better ref available. 13. updated link available 14. updated link available 15. broken/redundant to ref 14. 16. false info in article and ref. correct info and refs are available to Ontario powwow. 40 false info. 57. ref not reliable. 63. unreliable source, more reliable sources available. 2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)