Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Suggestion to change all references to "false claim of Indigenous identity"

I would like to propose that all references to the allegedly false claim of "Indigenous identity" be changed to "Indigenous ancestry". To describe Sainte-Marie's claim of Indigenous identity as "false" suggests that Wikipedia has unilaterally rescinded the effect of the Piapot First Nation adoption ceremony. I am sure that we would all agree that the Indigenous identity conferred by that ceremony can and should only be rescinded by the authorities of Piapot First Nation. To assume that a colonial document has the power to negate a First Nation ceremony smacks of racism. The focus of the "false claim" should be entirely on Indigenous ancestry. KitePerson (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "not identity" is a vague and thus potentially broad claim. "not ancestry" is more specific. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Again. Disagree. These are false claims. Indigenous identity cannot be conferred in ceremony. Being adopted into a family is just that.

it has nothing to do with colonialism.

If I am Mi’kmaq and I am adopted into a Swedish family am I now of Swedish ancestory and indigenous to Sweden?

The facts are Buffy is of English/Italian ancestory and was born in America. She was adopted into a Cree family. That does not make her indigenous no matter how you spin it. Calling it colonialism and racism does a disservice to real claims of colonialism and racism. 2001:569:7133:B000:6CD1:D41:E289:D8B8 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you are Mi'kmaq and you are adopted into a Swedish family, then you certainly do have a Swedish identity. For some outsider to com along and dismiss your Swedish identity as "false" would be a slap in the face to your adoptive parents. To suggest that the Piapot First Nation don't have a right to determine whom they identify as a member of their community is disrespectfully dismissive. The fact is that Sainte-Marie has been identified by a First Nation as a member of their community; it is her claim to Indigenous ancestry that appears to be disproven by the US birth certificate. This is an issue that needs to be handled sensitively, and wording is important, and whether you like it or not, running roughshod over the distinction and unilaterally deciding who you will permit to be identified a member of an Indigenous community that you have nothing to do with is patently colonialist. KitePerson (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The tribe she claimed has asked her to take a DNA test to prove her ancestry. Their own chief now questions her claim, thus Wikipedia is not negating their right to claim someone. And someone who has been ceremoniously adopted does not get to claim an Indigenous identity. They retain their original identity.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 22:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, in response to the CBC story, Chief Ira Lavallee of Piapot First Nation has stated that she is an accepted member of their community, "regardless of her ancestry". He has also later suggested that she should take a DNA test to "clear all this [the question of her ancestry] up", but that cannot be interpreted to mean that his community no longer recognize her as a member. I strongly believe that it is up to Piapot First Nation, not Wikipedia, to decide whom they recognize. Ancestry is an uncomplicated objective fact, but identity is something much more complicated, and not something that outsiders are in a position to pass judgement on. KitePerson (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Whether you pick ancestry or identity both of the claims would be false. I’m not sure why this is an issue.

I haven’t read one article that disputes Buffy is part of Emile Piapots family. But you are right, the chief wants DNA proof and other Crees dispute her indigenous identity and ancestory claims. Are they being colonial and racist. IMO this is just another play on Buffy being a victim.

I also want to correct you with the facts Kite. The Piapot Nation did not hold a ceremony to adopt Buffy. Buffy asked Emile to give her an Indian name at a powwow. This is Emile’s account in his own words. After that Buffy started to visit the Rez and support the family financially. She became a daughter to the family. Those are the facts. Although Buffy now claims her adoption is so significant it confers indignity onto her, this was her account in 1965, 2 years after her adoption “ She was born in Maine and these days home is wherever she happens to be. Although she’s been adopted by some people in Saskatchewan, People adopt her wherever she goes.” 2001:569:7133:B000:6CD1:D41:E289:D8B8 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't all the facts. When CBC broke the story of the false claims to Indigenous "identity", Ntawnis Piapot issued a statement on behalf of the family stating that whether o not Sainte-Marie has Indigenous blood has no bearing on her belonging to their Cree family. The adoption process is something that took place over "days and weeks and years" and clearly holds significance for the family. To describe her claim of Indigenous "identity" as false is dismissive of the family and the Piapot First Nation, and they have quite accurately described it as "hurtful, ignorant, colonial and... racist". The claim that the CBC investigation has challenged is her Indigenous ancestry. KitePerson (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

She claimed to be Native American before meeting that Cree family. She has neither an Indigenous identity or ancestry as far as anyone can tell. Wikipedia already has a policy in place about how claims to Native identity/ancestry is written about and it relies on citizenship. It would be confusing if the article wrote that Buffy has an "Indigenous identity" but has no Indigenous ancestry. Being adopted by a family doesn't mean someone is adopted into the entire nation and the fact their chief has challenged her to a DNA test shows she's not part of the entire nation. She also deleted any claims to being Native/First Nation on her official biography so she's not even identifying as Indigenous anymore.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your point on citizenship, I didn't know wikipedia had a policy on that. This should help clarify this discussion on what should be in the article as Kiteperson is correct that Sainte Marie in an honorary member of Emile Piapot's family. No-one have ever claimed that she is a registered band member or citizen of any of the Piapot reserves. 2001:569:7133:B000:AD6A:9C47:97EE:3D9E (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the article should state that she "has an Indigenous identity"; on the contrary, my point is that the question of her identity should be left out of the discussion altogether. The Wikipedia policy you talk about relates to whether an individual will be referred to as "Indigenous" in their Wiki entry, which is not the issue here (obviously, Buffy is not described as Indigenous in the entry). The issue is that "identity" is a complex and personal concept that should not be left up to settlers to pass judgement on. This is why I have suggested using "ancestry" instead. KitePerson (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Rather than debate the above I tend to look at what is structurally in the statements:

1. "Not ancestry" is pretty clear and source-able as is the resultant "fake claim of ancestry".
2. "Not identity" is debatable depending on the meaning of "identity" being used. And so the resultant "fake claim of identity" is also on debatable ground, and a broad negative claim....in essence that she has nothing that could be construed as identity. And being a wp:BLP it should have strong sourcing to be in.

Leaving out #2 (and thus narrowing to #1) is not a decision that she has indigenous identity, it is merely removing the claim of #2. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

3. She no longer "identifies" as Indigenous on her own biography.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The point is that "ancestry" is an objective concept that the evidence put forward by the CBC obviously pertains to; "identity" is something far more complex and personal and as such, it is a matter that should be left up to the only parties with any say in the question (i.e. Piapot Nation and Buffy Sainte-Marie) to determine. KitePerson (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

KitePerson, if you take the CBC report out of the picture, you still have Buffy identifying as having both indigenous ancestory and identity pre-adoption and this just continued post-adoption. Her claim to both hasn't changed since 1963. What are your concerns? If your concerns are that some of Emile Piapot's family claim her, that is not disputed. If your concern is his granddaugther claims she was adopted over years and months through Cree tradition, Emile and Buffy never claimed that. Is your concern that if Buffy wants to self-indentify as indigenous and another indigenous person wants to claim she is indigenous then that makes her indigenous? It's not clear what your concerns are. Can you explain? 2001:569:7133:B000:9011:FAF5:DD71:7CA9 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can "take the CBC report out of the picture", given that practically all the sections in Buffy's entry dealing with her Indigenous claim refer to it, but my concern is simple: to describe her claim to Indigenous identity simply as "false" is to draw the conclusion that the recognition of Buffy as family by members of the Piapot First Nation, including their Chief Ira Lavallee, was erroneous. Out of respect for the people of Piapot First Nation, I believe Wikipedia should not draw that conclusion unless/until the people of Piapot publicly draw that conclusion themselves. This is not about allowing Buffy to "self-identity as Indigenous", but about respecting the First Nation community that has had a relationship with her for so many years. Using "ancestry" instead of "identity" is a clear and simple way of keeping the description of the controversy neutral; asserting that her claim to Indigenous "identity" has been "disproven" by the Massachusetts birth certificate is basically ignoring the people who have the ultimate say in whether Buffy has Indigenous identity or not. KitePerson (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with the end result and 90% agree with the rationale. The other 10% is that changing to "Indigenous ancestry" is not based on Wikipedia acknowledging "identity" it is simply Wikipedia refraining from making a judgement on it. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My angle on this is structural. "False claims of indigenous identity" includes a statement that she does not have indigenous identity of any type and IMO it is an overreach to put that in Wikipedia in the voice of Wikipedia, doubly so in a WP:BLP. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree totally with North8000 here. This is basically a very brief summary of what I've been trying to explain. KitePerson (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Kite, the premise of letting people make up their own mind after reading the article I agree with. In order for them to make up their own mind the facts should be presented. The facts are Sainte Marie claimed both ancestry and identity. Both should be presented. The idea that presenting the false claims of ancestry and identity ignores the fact that one family on one Piapot reserve claims her somehow amounts to ignoring the fact the Piapot Nation claims her is incorrect. There are members of the Piapot reserves that do not claim her. She has been adopted by one family on one reserve. That is not being ignored and that by definition does not give her the right to claim to have an indigenous identity. As oncamera pointed out, your reference to the Chief claiming her as been updated and clarified. He states that he was under the impression she was born on Piapot and that she should now take a DNA test to verify that she is related to the family who adopted her. Let's not go back in time and ignore the current reality.[Special:Contributions/2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240|2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240]] (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I've touched on this in my response to Kiteperson, but presenting the information in the article that she falsely claimed both ancestry and identity is not passing judgement, it is presenting both facts. Both claims are false and should be presented so the reader isn't left with the impression that she may have lied about the ancestry part but she does have an indigenous identity because the family has claimed her in the article. I wouldn't propose removing the family's false claim she is Indigenous. But if that is going to be included in the article, it must include the fact she is not Indigenous by identity or ancestry. If you read the claim made by two people on Piapot that have claimed her and continue to, 99% of the claim is based on their right to claim her as part of their family, 1% is her right to claim to be Indigenous. There is also an argument being made that identity shouldn't be included because identity is nuanced and complicated because some people 'feel' she has the right to claim an indigenous identity based on some of members of the Piapot Nation claiming her. This is not supported by the facts and shouldn't be given the same weight as what we know to be the facts. 2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem to speak of "ancestry" and "identity" as if they are interchangeable here, but they are two different concepts. The question of her Indigenous ancestry is an objective fact that can be established one way or the other, either by her birth certificate or (more conclusively) by a DNA test. The question of whether she has an Indigenous "identity" is a subjective judgement that depends on the members of an Indigenous community identifying her as such, not on outsiders drawing the conclusion that if she has no Indigenous ancestry she ipso facto has no Indigenous identity. One does not automatically follow from the other. Perhaps you are confusing "identity" with "status", which is another objective fact that we can draw a conclusion about, as it is a simple legal definition, although in any case, Buffy has never claimed Indigenous status. Basically, it comes down to who has the right to describe somebody as having an Indigenous identity: (a) Wikipedia or (b) an Indigenous community. I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is (b). Ergo, let's shut up about the question of identity and leave that to the people with the authority to decide on it. KitePerson (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I think I clearly state both her claims of ancestry and identity are false. You keep claiming that 'the Indigenous community' claims her and that is just not true. Two people in the Indigenous community claim her. That is not the whole Piapot Nation. It is not the Cree people. It is not Indigenous people, just two Indigenous people.

You also ignore the fact that she claimed both ancestry and identity before any Indigenous person claimed her. She said she was Micmac (Mi'kmaq) which is identity and false. She said she was born to Cree parents (ancestry) which is false. She started out with a lie. She continued to lie. She still lies. Bye the way, I am a part of the Indigenous community and I don't claim her. 2001:569:7133:B000:5401:C14F:97B0:D0C8 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You've clearly made up your mind about it, but different Indigenous people have different views, and Wikipedia should not presume to speak for Indigenous communities. This is a complex issue and not one to be taken lightly. If you're interested, read this article for further context on the complexities I am talking about: https://thewalrus.ca/pretendian-investigations/ KitePerson (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Kiteperson, I’ve read that article and many others. I am not making up my mind based on one article or a few Indigenous people”s emotional responses or my own. My assessments are based on the totality of the facts and those do not support her claim to being indigenous. They tell a story of someone who has used a claim of being indigenous to further her career, take honors, awards and space meant for indigenous people and use valid indigenous claims of racism, abuse and harms done towards indigenous people as her own story. This is just as much her story, and should be clearly represented in her article, as much as any of the accomplishments she achieved while doing it. 2001:569:7133:B000:5599:8349:A0E0:B2B3 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

2001.... In everyday conversation, I would tend to say the same as you. Her claims to identity seem to be spun up from something that one family said. But I don't think we should put in "false claims of identity". I don't think that your arguments are addressing a main reason for leaving it out which IMHO is in in my 14:56, 8 December 2023 post above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

North, with all due respect. You have been editing the article for awhile. At no point since the article was created did anyone remove her false claim to being indigenous from the first sentence of the article. If you think it shouldn’t be labelled as false, why remove it at all? I believe it was removed because it was false, just as the claim she was born in a Cree reserve was removed because it was false. Labelling her claim to indigenous identity false is just a fact. I think of it like this, Trump has claimed the last US election was rigged and he really won. Millions of Americans agree and I could find you hundreds of references to support this claim. But in the Trump article you will find “false claim”, why? Because it is a fact that it is a false claim. Buffy’s claim to being indigenous is supported by a few indigenous people and I could find you lots of references that she is but it is also not supported by the facts and is a false claim. 2001:569:7133:B000:5599:8349:A0E0:B2B3 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

It it a general principle (see WP:LEAD) that the lead should be a summary of the body. Part of that principle is that the order of material in the lead should follow the order of the material in the body. Since controversies are always presented after career accomplishments, the same order is required in the lead section. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: We're trying to decide this in the mini-RFC above. Suggest also weighing in the there. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall Direction of this Article

After reading the Talk page I get the sense that there are several points of view on the overall direction of this article and how it should be presented.

1. One wrongdoing should not define Buffy's entire career. She may/may not have lied about her ancestry/identity but that should be mentioned as one note in her life story. Her accomplishments as a sing-songwriter, musician, actor, activist should compose the body of the article.

2. Buffy's career is defined by a series of wrongdoings. Every time she put on her beads and feathers, every time she accepted award or took space meant for an Indigenous person, she committed an act of wrongding. Her entire career is defined by this.

3. Buffy's claim to being Indigenous is True or False and if the wikipedia article implies either it is not neutral and is passing judgment. The information should not exist in the article or should be minimized.

Correct me if I am wrong, but these appear to be the suggested directions this article should take. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how editors should approach this article? 2001:569:7133:B000:1DB5:C4E7:5488:631D (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would lean towards #2. I don't think this Buffy wikipage would look the same if Buffy hadn't claimed to be Indigenous. If she had leaned in at some point and told any of the entertainers she has worked "psst, hey, I'm really not Indigenous, it's just my act" or when accepting her awards said "Oh no, you shouldn't have. No really, I'm not Indigenous" or told the kids on Sesame St that "there are real Indians and there are fake Indians, and I'm a fake Indian" we would have a different article.

Buffy is no doubt a talented singer-songwriter, musician, activist and actor and could have likely had a nice career. But it would be an entirely different article if she'd not claimed to be Indigenous. 2001:569:7133:B000:1DB5:C4E7:5488:631D (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To me, the argument "if xxx wouldn't have happened, then yyy wouldn't have happened" is not a reason to say that xxx caused yyy. Hundreds of things qualify for such a (IMO wrong) definition of "cause". So I go with #1, albeit with including full coverage of what she did wrong. These are all facts relevant to article and we should cover them as such without deciding that one fact should cancel the others. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that both should be covered. A lot of it is X caused Y though. That OC Order of Canada after her name in the article, Buffy received that for being an Indigenous Canadian...not Italian American... 2001:569:7133:B000:5401:C14F:97B0:D0C8 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The whole notion of "wrongdoing" is misplaced. We're not a judge/jury deciding somebody's fate. All we're doing is summarizing what reliable sources say. We should never be adding/changing/removing reliable sourced material because somebody "deserves" better/worse treatment for doing something we deem "write" or "wrong". How you write about a person at Wikipedia should be entirely different than if you were writing or talking about her when speaking for yourself. So, I reject all three options above, as this is not the venue to discuss them. --Rob (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Some of the info in the article is not referencing reliable sources or any sources. Some of the info in the article can be disproven by some of the reliable verifiable sources on this talk page. What do you leave/update/remove/add etc and how does that not turn the page into an edit-war? 2001:569:7133:B000:5401:C14F:97B0:D0C8 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What specific info are you complaining about? If there are any claims in the article not backed up by reliable sources, then they should be removed. You can create an account and be bold, and remove them yourself, or you can suggest the specific changes needed. --Rob (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m not complaining.

1. Buffy claims her family name was changed because of anti Italian sentiment after ww2. In the CBC documentary Youtube video (Time:20:28), where it shows Buffy's birth certificate it states she was born in 1941 and that they family also goes by the name St. Marie. I think we can agree that if they used the name St. Marie in 1941 that 1941 came before ww2, not after. So that information is false.

2. Adopted on the Piapot reserve (which is in Saskatchewan) section . Documented on this page, there are articles from both people involved, Emile Piapot (adopter) and Buffy (adoptee), and both state it took place on Manitoulin Island (which is in Ontario).

3. Buffy won a Billboard Magazine award for Best New Artist. Unsupported. If you can find me anywhere in Billboard magazine in that year or any year that this is a fact, I couldn’t. She claimed in 1967 that she won in a different year as folk artist of the year or something to that affect.

All of that information in the present article is either incorrect or unsupported by reliable verifiable sources. 2001:569:7133:B000:5599:8349:A0E0:B2B3 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I (and I hope others) will look through each of these fully. Here's my first quick (incomplete) response.

1, WW2 and related anti-Italian views began in the US before the US entered the war. Regardless, reliable sources say that's why they changed their name, so that's what we say.

2, An indigenous person can go to a pow-wow and perform ceremonies outside of their own community.

3. PBS confirmed the Billboard award [1]

It's important to note, that it's not our job to verify the claims of this article with our own investigating, but rather to follow what the reliable sources say (based on their investigations). As long as what we report follows reliable sources, we don't have to concern ourselves if we personally think something is true or consistent. --Rob (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree that if reliable sources confirm a claim it is fair to post that claim in an article. Unfortunately in this case what would be considered reliable sources aren't reliable as they didn't fact check what they posted or they fact checked by using unreliable sources like Buffy's bios and documentaries.

Maybe it is not the place of wikipedia to update information that is based on unreliable sources or confirm and correct information in the article that has been proven to be incorrect. If you look at the majority of sites that tell Buffy's story, they still say she was born in Piapot. She was adopted, etc.

To me I see wikipedia as one of the only places where these facts can be corrected and a reliable source can be created. Many students and even some scholars reference and cite wikipedia. If editors don't believe it is their role to provide the facts and correct them when they are wrong, wikipedia is useless as a point of reference.

1. The article states the name was changed because of anti-italian following the second world war. That was what Buffy specifically claimed. That is proven to be incorrect even if PBS or any other site says it's true. It is on her birth document. On some PBS site pages you'll find she was born on Piapot, also incorrect.

2. An Indigenous person can perform ceremonies in many places. I have friends that are medicine men and travel all over the world performing ceremonies. That was not the point. The point was that the article claims it was in Saskatchewan and the two people that would know where it was first hand say it was in Ontario. There have been second hand accounts from family and I can provide you references if you like, but I give more weight to first hand accounts. You do realize that the PBS reference still has it its chronology that she was born on a Cree reserve. Not a very reliable reference.

3. Is it a fact that PBS confirmed the Billboard Award of did they get that confirmation from Buffy's site? In 1967 Buffy claimed a different award and a different date.

I don't plan on updating the page and getting into this divisive edit-war. The facts are here in the Talk page. If someone is that interested in the article they can find them here. If editors that have previously edited the article want to ignore them, I'm fine with that too. 2001:569:7133:B000:F99E:D6C3:E472:467F (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I am actually done with this article other than to predict that once this article becomes editable that there will be a series of ongoing edits referencing 'reliable' sources with false claims and newfound Buffy experts adding them to the article as newly discovered facts. It happened in the case of her false claims that the FBI and two presidents caused her career decline. It was removed due to the lack of verifiable facts only to be reborn when a keen editor found the claim on many reputable sites. I will come back in a month or so when the interest has waned and I can watch fiction become fact once again. Have fun. 2001:569:7133:B000:F99E:D6C3:E472:467F (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ask ChatGPT they use Wikipedia data. Buffy was born on the Piapot Reserve. ChatGPT knows. 207.35.73.116 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Read Disputed Statement section for clarity. The information you’ve posted above is not correct. 207.6.227.128 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Early life and education to Career

There is no information in the Early Life and Education or Career section that provides context to how Buffy went from Italian-American born in Mass, USA. to a Career as a Indigenous Canadian Singer-songwriter/musician/actor/activist born on a Sask. Canadian reserve. There is plenty of verifiable reliable easily sourced information that could explain this transformation. How is the reader suppose to understand this race-shift transformation that took place at that time? The Career section should be prefaced with information on how and Italian-American girl became an Indigenous Canadian Singer-songwriter/musician/actor/activist. 2001:569:7133:B000:5D07:F3FB:C21E:4931 (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Goal of NPOV and enclyclopedic coverage

My thought is that the article should encyclopedically cover the good and bad, including what was recently revealed. Some have advocated or edited towards the extremes on one hand towards a bashfest with value-laden words, others were removing the newly revealed information and restoring the now-disproven information. I did a slow read of the article with this in mind. To me it seems pretty good except with one major omission. She did benefit from her now-disproven claims, there are accustations of that, and such is also implicit in referring to her as a pretendian (the term is not currently used in the article). And this aspect is certainly very prominent. There there is nothing about this aspect/claim in either the body or the lead. IMO it could use a paragraph regarding this in the body and a sentence in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the original article was edited towards one extreme based on information taken from quotes from Buffy, her bios, documentaries, official website, other sites repeating information obviously provided by Buffy that has now been disproven or is now seen through a different lens and that is the dilemma here.

IMO her accomplishments should be acknowledged and documented in the article. It should be prefaced with the information that she was in fact pretending to be Indigenous and achieved much of this recognition because of this (probably somewhere in the lead paragraph). If she had identified herself as an Italian American and proceeded to behave as she has throughout her life, I highly doubt her Wikipedia page would look anything like it does today. 2001:569:7134:1600:D41F:F7DB:2A09:5F87 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I updated the Honors & awards section and updated the lead to reflect this information. More can be added if folks want to search up the articles.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It reads as far too strong currently. She denies it, and we don’t have her voice in this at all. 84.65.104.84 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

She's not a reliable source.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is looking much better. I’ve reviewed some of the bio info and docs and that info was way too fictional. Updating some of those links to confirm factual info is one idea or removing unsupported info and links another.

The prelude to the honours section is appropriate and gives needed context to the honours and awards section.

At some point a lot of her honours and award were removed. I understand someone’s motivation but she did in fact win these awards, that’s a fact. The long list IMO was odd and looked like a bit self serving, but perhaps having them there in a new context is even more appropriate. 2001:569:7134:1600:912F:D48:A8B0:CB54 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@North8000 I've added this ref in another Topic but I think it more appropriately fits here. Several editors that should know have weighed in on NPOV and revised the article based on their misunderstanding of what NPOV means. I do believe this essay can clarify what NPOV means and help editors understand that diminishing/limiting/excluding controversial information is not what NPOV means. Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead photo

I propose we use File:Buffy Sainte-Marie, Cambridge Festivals 2001-2014 (3786036860).jpg for the lead photo, after cropping it to a portrait orientation, chopping off left-hand side of photo. I think it looks more like a nice posed photo, as opposed to a candid snap shot. I find the current photo, File:Buffy Ste. Marie - Truth and Reconciliation Commission Concert - Ottawa - 2015 (cropped).JPG looks poorly due to the way her hand/fingers are positioned, and is a little to zoomed in. This is just my subjective opinion, and I won't change anything without support. --Rob (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Are you seeing a devil horns finger pose? 2001:569:7133:B000:A161:8756:AAFF:1DD4 (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - the current lead image is fine. Skyerise (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak support IMO the proposed one looks better. North8000 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

False Information / Unreliable References

There are several mentions of false info and unreliable references in the Talk page. Please place any here for review:

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

False: The family also went by the St. Marie name in 1941. Noted in her Birth Certificate document dated 1941. See Youtube video(Time:20:28) 2001:569:7133:B000:1937:82D0:ADA:6A98 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Her father never changed the family name but as stated above went by St. Marie in 1941 and likely prior. Father's Obit. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/235457752/albert-cicero_%22smokey%22-santamaria#view-photo=283215993 2001:569:7133:B000:EC43:6F36:757F:E348 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI, Findagrave.com is not considered to be WP:RS. Also, as anyone who has worked in the newspaper industry can tell you, most obituaries are not news stories: they are paid placements written by a family member or friend. They are not fact-checked and should also not be considered reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I could make the same argument for the vast majority of the sources in this article though. It's hard to argue an ref is reliable and the source has fact checked when the ref contains a mix of false info and unsubstantiated claims from the Interviewee. Seems questionable in terms of its verifiability. Because a claim exists on any website does not inherently make the claim verifiable and factual. It may just be a lie, posted on a credible site that did not fact check. I've gone through all the refs in this article and that is what I am basing my comments on. 2001:569:7133:B000:EC43:6F36:757F:E348 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's another interesting fact.

"Her family changed their surname from Santamaria to the more French-sounding “Sainte-Marie” due to anti-Italian sentiment following the Second World War." uses ref 2. In the text that supports this claim the author does in fact repeat this claim, therefor it is referenced. BUT the actual video the reference is supporting has documented evidence that disproves this claim. So is ref 2 a valid ref for this claim when the same ref disproves it? 2001:569:7133:B000:EC43:6F36:757F:E348 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Disputed/False: 1964/1965 Billboard Magazine contains no mention of Buffy Sainte Marie being named Best New Artist. In 1967 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7133:B000:1937:82D0:ADA:6A98 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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.[16]

False: There are several different stories about Buffy's adoption. They vary from adopted in Ontario at a powwow (both claimed by Emile Piapot and Buffy) and other claims that she was adopted at Piapot (both claimed by Emile Piapot's granddaughter in reference 16 and by Buffy elsewhere). Nowhere in the documentary is there a claim that she was adopted while on a trip to the Piapot Cree reserve (in Canada) for a powwow. The two stories are combined and is false. If the choice of story is the story told in ref 16 the correct information for this story can be found in the documentary Youtube video(Time:20:28) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7133:B000:1937:82D0:ADA:6A98 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference Issues

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 through multiple other reliable sources. 40 false info. 57. ref not reliable. 63. unreliable source, more reliable sources available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7133:B000:1937:82D0:ADA:6A98 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Career Section and Ref 13 and 16. and unreferenced information

I have particular concerns around Ref 13 and 16 and the significant amount of unreferenced information in this section. A lot of this information is based on accounts by Buffy and not information that can be considered reliable and well sourced factual information. There are other sources online that can verify this information that are also likely referencing doc and bio sources that have been proven to contain false information and claims. WP:BLP "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." WP:BLPSELFPUB Prior to recent updates this article was in violation of BLPSELFPUB requirements 1-5 and is likely still in violation.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023

As per the Wikipedia’s Manual of Style (MoS) regarding biographies, the post-nominal letters listed should be changed as per MOS:POSTNOM. It states that post nominal letters should only be included if "issued either by the subject’s state of citizenship or residence." Since neither apply to Buffy, this article should be adjusted to follow the Manual of Style. I should also note that there are a surprising number of sources listing her as a Companion of the Order from 2019, which appears may be in dispute. Following MOS is best here. 2605:B100:10A:447F:8DE:FA35:17B5:71BF (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? 2605:B100:10A:447F:8DE:FA35:17B5:71BF (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you are correct re the OC inclusion in the lead sentence. It is listed in the honors and awards section. It doesn't appear that she is willing to request the honor be rescinded, as another recent case Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond (who is Canadian) has done, so it should remain in the honors and awards section until she does. 2001:569:7133:B000:EC43:6F36:757F:E348 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure you even read the original request up there. It has nothing to do with whether she holds the award or not. Rather, it is a foreign award and as per Wikipedia’s OWN manual of style (WP:POSTNOM), post-nominal letters are not used for foreign awards. They should only be used if issued by the subject’s [Buffy’s] state of citizenship (not Canada) or residence (also not Canada). As long as she holds the award and it is not stripped from her (which it probably will be in the future) it can remain in the honours list of awards below. It’s the use of the post-nominal letters that seems to be the issue. Also, Americans don’t use post-nominals to begin with. But regardless, there is a clear manual of style ruling on its incorrect use here. 2605:B100:10A:447F:88CC:8BD0:1C72:EE25 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been taken away or has she hadded it back in YET! . Can you pls read about eligibility before guesswork "Eligibility". The Governor General of Canada. February 28, 2018.. Can we also get you to slow down on trying to cancel her......all we do here is regurgitate what has happened...we are not a judge and jury. Moxy- 02:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No one is trying to cancel her. It’s a simple guideline to follow. Post-nominal letters are NOT used for foreign awards, as per WP:POSTNOM. If you disagree with the guidelines, take it up with Wikipedia. 2605:B100:10A:447F:88CC:8BD0:1C72:EE25 (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection has expired...for now

Semi-protection has expired...for now. If you have a more extreme "take" idea in either direction, please take it to talk here instead of hammering the article with major undiscussed unilateral takes. It would be great if we don't have to get protection again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical error in lead

The sentence reads: ”While working in these areas, her work has focused on issues facing Indigenous peoples of the United States and Canada.”

It’s nonsensical. What is meant is obviously that Sainte-Marie has focused on these issues while working in these areas, not that her work has. As an inanimate object or abstraction, her work does not have the ability to work.

Moreover, what does ”these areas” refer back to? Apparently to ”singer-songwriter,” ”musician,” and ”social activist”. But these are not ”areas”. A musician is a person or a profession, not an area. Music would be an area, lexically speaking, but not musician. I wouldn’t have thought there would be controversy over basic syntax and grammatical logic.185.104.137.43 (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume that by "controversy" you mean the reversion of your deletion. The main problem was that you just deleted the whole thing. If you would have tried to fix it instead, it would have been much less likely to get reverted. "Area" is vague but probably used by necessity to refer to those diverse areas. If you have a better word, I'd suggest try substituting it in. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! North8000 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL

@Skyerise: The {{who}} tagging in the introduction is not necessary. If you read WP:WEASEL, it specifically says:

The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source.

The tagged phrase is:

• More specific than "some people"
• Supported by multiple references
• In the lead section

I read through the references and different indigenous people and groups are mentioned, but none really stood out as being more prominent (e.g., mentioned in a plurality of articles) so the current phrasing seems appropriate for an introduction. If you want to replace it with an unwieldy list of people and organizations, knock yourself out and we'll wait for someone else to revert that change from the introduction, but please don't add back a tag that's not needed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I was about to re-remove the tag, but someone else beat me to it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you and removed the tag again as the word "some" is clearly not a weasel word in this context as its inclusion is supported by various strong references. As the guideline states, "some" is not always a weasel word and it definitely isn't in this instance. Some editors incorrectly think that any use of "some" is always weasely. Yahboo (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/Suggestion - I'm OK with both options, using "some" or naming actual people, however a third option is to consider is to say something like: The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reported that "some Indigenous musicians....." (with citation which is already present in the article) + another one or two sources that make this claim could also be referenced. That way we could streamline the CITEKILL overload, and have a more accurate version of what the sources themselves are saying. Any thoughts? Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion in my view. Another one from me, if an example is to be included, is something like "Among Indigenous people who have asked for Sainte-Marie's awards to be rescinded, ???? said that ...". Yahboo (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think any of those suggestions would be an improvement for the main body of the article, but I would recommend leaving the lead the way it is, perhaps reducing the number of citations for that particular sentence to three. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)