Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie

RFC regarding order of presentation in the lead
Since we have a near-edt war going on, let's sort out what I believe to be the core question. IMO the active participants here are better suited to sort this out:

Should her false claims of indigenous ancestry be covered in:


 * 1) The first paragraph of the lead?
 * 2) Later in the lead?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody changed the title of this after I started it and also changed it into an official RFC.  I'm fine with and support them doing that all of that if there is clarity on how it started.   The title was "Time for a mini pseudo RFC regarding the lead" and it was not an official RFC at the start. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. First paragraph of lead, ideally first or second sentence.  I'm open to different wording, but feel her identity, and related issues, gives critical context to everything else.  --Rob (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. First paragraph of lead, ideally first or second sentence. Her Indigenous claims were a defining part of her career, they span the entirety of her career and the recent investigation has been a major news story that has changed much of her biography including no longer being considered Canadian or Cree by many due to the facts of her biological family. The article required a major rewrite and that should be reflected in the lead paragraph. Editors have argued for the lead to also be written chronologically and her claims go back to the 1960s.  oncamera  (talk page) 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. First paragraph, claiming to be indigenous was intertwined with her career, awards, public image, etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. First paragraph her claims go back to the 40s scoop. The chronology of the story use to be born in 1941 on a Cree reserve. It should stay the same but with the false claim update. 2001:569:7133:B000:3C99:21FC:94F:BD0A (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest later in the lead Maybe second paragraph.  She is a singer songwriter and did a lot of stuff.  IMO first paragraph should define what she is, not be about what she did wrong.    Awards were prima facie for her actions, with ancestry being a condition for some of them.   Her fake claims are important but IMO the second paragraph is a more appropriate place for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since my first brown box at is based in the first place upon your notion from an earlier section, I suspect that we are in agreement.  &#9786;  Cramming everything into the first paragraph, and then in turn cramming that all into the first sentence of the first paragraph, is just bad writing.  Readers really can manage reading more than 1 sentence.  Uncle G (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a matter of trying to cram everything into one paragraph. I would explain it this way, putting the information that Buffy is indigenous or not in the first sentence or paragraph is as important as putting the fact the Pope is catholic or not. 2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, and this sort of wrongheaded thinking about nationality has led to all sorts of ridiculous edit wars and appallingly written articles in the past. The first sentence says "American", and that's sufficient for the first sentence, because that is the equivalent of saying that the Pope is Catholic.  Cramming the whole explanation of "American" into the first sentence, or even the first paragraph, as well is just bad writing.  Don't write badly, and try to make nationality specifics the most important thing about a person that gets rammed down readers' throats with "[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" overkill.  This person is American, a singer-songwriter, and an activist, with a career from the 1960s to the 2020s.  That is how to introduce the article.  Readers coming here expecting "Indigenous Canadian" will by that alone already be informed otherwise.  Introductions should not be structured in Mad Spiral Style as everything crammed into the introduction, with everything then crammed into the first paragraph of the introduction, and then everything then crammed into the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction.  Readers really can manage more than 1 sentence, and shouldn't be bombarded with high information density cramming and "Insert-Nationality-Here[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]" madness.  This is why the laundry list that North8000 addressed was a bad thing, too.  Uncle G (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if Buffy herself hadn't made it such an essential part of her identity. If you've researched Buffy to any degree you will find that Indigenous/Cree/MicMac/Algonquin and so on was the most important descriptor for Buffy. It always came before singer-songwriter, actor, activist. This was important to Buffy and it is why she had the career she had and won so many of the awards she did. If Buffy had spent her life describing herself as an American, I would agree with your premise. What I think you are missing in my Buffy/Pope analogy is that Buffy still describes herself as an Indigenous Canadian. The Pope, so long has he's been in that role, has always described himself as catholic. If we could take a time machine back to May 28, 2023, or when the article was first created on May 02, 2004, I don't think you could find one wikipedia editor that would argue that Buffy's claim of Indigenous ancestry shouldn't be in the first sentence or paragraph. But now that is not true, it has lost it's significance. Interesting.2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 2, later in the lead. I'm looking through Pretendian, and from what I'm seeing, the the false claim is only mentioned when the false claim was inherent to their notability and fame; when the person achieved fame beyond (alleged) heritage, it's later down. For example, Red Thunder Cloud came to prominence as "the last fluent speaker of the Catawba language", so the discovery that he was not Indigenous is similarly forefronted; but for Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who leaned on her supposed heritage but also has a noted legal career, it comes later. Essentially, the false heritage is only lead with when the heritage was their claim to fame (there are exceptions, but this looks to be the general trend). Buffy Sainte-Marie absolutely used her false heritage to further her career, but I would say that her notability doesn't rest on it in the same way. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. I have read probably 20-30 articles on Turpel-Lafond and many, but not all, reference her false heritage claims. I have read more than 100 articles on Buffy, watched several documentaries, over 20 interviews and reviewed many books and magazines. I can only recall maybe one or 2 that did not describe her as Indigenous in some way. In all of her concerts and videos I have watched she has dressed in a way that would seem to imply she is indigenous. Up until she removed them from her website and it was removed from this wikipedia article 2 of Buffy's main claims to fame were, first Indigenous person to win an Academy Award and First Indigenous person to appear on Sesame St. 2001:569:7133:B000:CC38:D0FC:C967:B240 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you go to any article about a person who became famous as a (presumed) indigenous artist, you will find the *first* sentence in the lead identifies the (presumed) fact they're indigenous. The same is true of this article, prior to her being outed.  Now, the question we have to ask is this:  Does the fact her declared identity is based on a lie mean that her (fake)indigenous identity is suddenly less important?  Her (fake)indigenous identity was in the lead sentence from 2004 until 2023.  But, now that her identity has received even more coverage there's somehow a push to delay mentioning it.  I assert we should give as much weight to her (fake)indigenous identity as we *always* have, with the only change being that we correctly state facts based on current reliable sources.  --Rob (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph - per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article in the same order as material is presented in the body. This means that a person's accomplishments should preceed any controversersies, both in the article body and the lead. To do otherwise violates both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE by emphasizing controversy over accomplishments. That would also constitute a violation of WP:BLP in this case. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Some background (all contained in this Talk page). The Lead was essentially unchanged for 20 years. The information use to contain false information in the first sentence. The correction being made is to acknowledge the false claim.
 * In this case a controversial BLP is having their article updated to include verifiable, non-original research that is factual and it is being corrected in the exact place the misinformation has been for 20 years without issue. Because it is controversial does not equate to it having an editorial bais. This has been raised and addressed in the other Lead Topics on the Talk page. If you read this article I don't think you will find an undue balance of controversial information to achievements. I think you will find quite the opposite. While the information being added is controversial it serves to create balance, not outbalance or imply any bias. It is DUE not UNDUE.
 * Re WP:LEAD again, this Lead has been essential the same for 20 years. There have been discussion and issues raised that is not chronological, WP:BLP concerns, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and many other concerns why the controversial information should be relegated to an afterthought or that it is not significant. I don't believe there has been a strong enough argument made that it should be any less of significance than the previous misinformation that it replaces.
 * While there are many wikipedia articles that note controversaries after the accomplishments there is nowhere that assigns it this place. There are many articles where controversial information comes prior to give context the the following information. In this case that is where it belong because it is significant and relevant to the information that follows. Reading all the awards and accomplishments, in this case winning Indigenous awards for example, then reading after that they weren't entitled to win those awards makes no sense. Acknowledging the BLP was not entitled to win awards meant for Indigenous people, then listing the awards they did win gives the reader a clearer understanding of what was taking place at the time the award was won. It would be much like listing all the medals a soldier won during his time of service to note after that the person never actually served. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7133:B000:5D07:F3FB:C21E:4931 (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would invite you to take the time to read the Talk page and consider the issues that have been raised here before unilaterally editing the page with may be your own bias. There are other Topics discussing the Lead paragraph article that I think you should consider before making changes to the page.
 * I think you are misinterpreting WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in this case.
 * Some info for reference:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute [[Special:Contributions/2001:569:7133:B000:5D07:F3FB:C21E:4931|2001:569:7133:B000:5D07:F3FB
 * C21E:4931]] (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We base the lead on the MOS, not other articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a known invalid argument. The other articles need to be corrected if the lead does not summarize the body in the order that the facts are presented in the body. Skyerise (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Other editors have made the same edits you have and they've been reverted. This will continue which is why this topic was created. How about not unilaterally deciding "we" decided anything and totally redo the entire article? Let the discussion take place here on the Talk page and once their is some consensus, we can change it? This article has gone from a B to a C with these edits. Burying controversial facts and changing the chronology to fit your understanding of MOS doesn't address the issue being discussed here.
 * If you feel strongly though that your interpretation of MOS is correct and other articles should comply. I'd invite you to fix the Pope's article. It also lists his identity in the first sentence and second paragraph. This is what people are trying to correct and has been in place for 20 years with Buffy's article. Let's Talk about it and not impose anyone's interpretation as Wikipedia's.
 * This whole not chronological argument and the edits being made are at times bizarre. How does winning an award in the 1980s come before someone claiming to be Indigenous in the 1960s? Because it was revealed in 2023 does not change the fact they claimed it since the 60s. If you believe you are the arbiter of WP:* I will accept that. Please accept that I am that of Buffy's history and her history is as follows chronologically: Born is Mass. USA. Claimed to be Indigenous since the 1960s. Built a career that spanned many years based on this claim. Won many awards and had many opportunities because of this claim. Decided to retired months after this claim was revealed to be untrue on X/Reddit. CBC revealed this claim not to be true to a wider audience in 2023. Still claims to be 'Indian' to this day. This is the correct chronology according to all available facts and in spite of misinformation that still exists on many notable sites. I hope this can help with your chronology edits.[Special:Contributions/2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9|2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9]] (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Second or third paragraph: - The opening paragraph should summarise the most essential facts about someone over the course of their lifetime. As important and notable as the recent revelations / allegations about Buffy's claim to be Native Canadian are, the MOS in my considered view indicates that this kind of information definitely does not belong in the opening paragraph. It also appears to me to be both more appropriate and useful if this information has a paragraph of its own near the beginning of the opening section but not in the opening paragraph itself. Any controversies about a person, no matter how significant they may be, should nearly always be avoided in the opening paragraph from my reading of the MOS. There are also, I would suggest, some issues about whether the allegations against her (regardless of the apparent convincing evidence behind them) should at present be accepted in Wikipedia as beyond any factual doubt. Yahboo (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yahboo I agree, essential facts in the opening paragraph. There is nothing more essential to the story or Buffy Sainte Maire than her claim to being Indigenous. She was an Indigenous sing-songwriter, Indigenous musician who played an indigenous instrument to begin her career, an Indigenous activist who represented Indigenous people and spoke on many Indigenous issues, an Indigenous actor, won many Indigenous awards...until she wasn't.
 * Whenever Buffy spoke, she spoke as an Indigenous person. When she told the story of how as a child she spent a harsh winter on the reserve back in Saskatchewan living on nothing but frozen potatoes, we all felt for her struggle as an Indigenous person growing up in such harsh conditions...until we didn't. 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe a brief mention of the recent allegations (which IMO shouldn't be yet accepted as completely established facts) could be included in the opening paragraph but, all things considered, I still maintain that it's more appropriate for its inclusion to be in its own paragraph near the first but not part of it. Yahboo (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yahboo I think a lot of the issue around whether these are established facts seems to be around who presented them, the CBC. At least that's been my take on the Talk page and other non-wikipedia articles. If instead of referencing the CBC doc and relying it so much, if the article referenced direct articles that had claims that were factually incorrect I think it could resolve some if the issue around whether these are facts or not. ie. If the article referenced 3 articles where in Buffy's own words she claimed to be MicMac, Alqonquin and Cree and also referenced an article that has her birth certificate the proves she is not, it might take the idea that there is bias in the CBC doc out of the picture.
 * I look at it like this, in Donald Trump's wikipedia article it would be wrong not to acknowledge his claim that the 2020 election was stolen (and in fact the article does reference it as a false claim). Millions of Americans believe this is true and there are thousands of references confirming it as true. BUT we also have facts and information that proves this is a false claim and reference it. While we acknowledge the false claim, we do not provide a neutral article in the way that some have proposed we should based their understand of WP:NPOV. That is not the purpose of NPOV. We present the information that is false as false and we definitely present the information that is facts as facts.
 * This really shouldn't be this difficult. 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Third paragraph - per WP:LEAD...... 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 -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. First paragraph of lead. She built her career on claims of Indigenous ancestry/identity; for being an Indigenous musician, social activist and singer-songwriter. This goes back the early 1960s - at least to 1963 when she claimed she was Micmac in the Detroit Free Press. Also in 1963 she claimed to be Algonquin and also Cree. These claims defined her public image and had a substantial influence since the beginning of her career that was constructed around being an Indigenous artist, so it does not make sense to decouple that now. The fact that it was recently discovered that these claims were false or misleading has no bearing on the fact that from the very start her entire career was built on this. I do not think it is a BLP violation, nor "hateful" in anyway to state this in the encyclopedia - upfront and in the lead, as it can be backed up in many reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph (summoned by bot) - as per all prior arguments above. It would jumble up the lead otherwise. The entire (interesting) chronology of her pretty forecefully constructing and defending an image of being an Indigenous artist and deleting it from her bio in Nov 2023 is in the extra section of the body for the interested reader. Importantly, missing in the lede is her Native adoption, for balance! I also like the suggestion to include that WP has had it as a first sentence in the lead since 2004, in the section "claims of indigenous heritage" --Wuerzele (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph firstly She is a singer songwriter and did a lot of stuff … first paragraph should define what she is, not be about what she did wrong per North8000. Also Any controversies about a person, no matter how significant they may be, should nearly always be avoided in the opening paragraph. Stylistically it also allows more chronological and in-depth coverage if the whole 'identity' topic is covered in its own paragraph, rather than screaming FAKE in the opening paragraph, without much nuance.Pincrete (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Third paragraph, though I'm not sure that framing the question this way is necessarily optimal, and it would probably have been preferable to have clearer options. Anyway, if the alternatives are the lede as it currently stands, with the third paragraph describing the controversy over claims of indigenous ancestry, or the recent edit (now reverted) which moved this to the end of the first paragraph, I'd go with the former, mostly on the basis that it gives the clearest narrative explanation of events. It makes very little sense for example to be discussing controversies about awards prior to stating that she'd won them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Moxy How is claiming to be Indigenous from the 1960s-2023 a modern problem? I’m curious to understand how you define it as a modern problem. 2001:569:7133:B000:C85D:9B2F:2F52:66B7 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your hatred for this person is very palpitable with every post. What we are looking for in a bio is neutrality.... not based on advocacy writing. That said I can see the opening sentence saying something along the lines of.... Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:49, 17 December 2023  (UTC)
 * @moxy I have no "hatred" of anyone. What I do dislike is when people don't want to accept facts and would prefer to have fiction where facts should reside. I can understand how people outside the Indigenous community have preferred to have white folks play Indians. Real Indigenous people telling real Indigenous stories can be hard to swallow.
 * From what I've read of your posts you would prefer we go back to a time when Buffy could put on her feathers and beads and was the Queen of Indigenous Canada (as some articles have defined her) and we could just forget she's not Indigenous or even claimed to be.
 * The facts are that if you research Buffy's history, she has spent the past 60 years claiming all sorts of Indigenous identities and accepted many opportunities and honors meant for Indigenous people. None of Buffy's claims I have invented to disparage her, in most instances I am just referencing her claims in her own words. To ignore that are write an articles that discounts or diminishes this in any way is not being neutral, it is ignoring and not acknowledging important facts that have defined this person's whole career.
 * I may not be of significance to people who have followed her musical career and like her music (even all the fake Indigenous songs she sang in her fake rez accent). But I know many artists who did not win awards they could have if Buffy was honest. I haven't personally been affected by Buffy's lies so I have animosity towards her. In the end I would just like to see a factual account of the story that is Buffy Sainte Marie, You won't find it in any of her bios or docs; it can't be found on her personal site or any of the other encyclopedia or pretty much anywhere online. I am hoping that editor can put aside their cultural biases, opinions on Buffy and report ALL the facts. Why some editors would chose to ignore and diminish factual information and promote and keep incorrect information as being inline with WP:NPOV is beyond my comprehension. Buffy has history of paying lawyers to hide and diminish information that is not inline with her Indigenous narrative. Wikipedia should present the facts in a neutral way. 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you read over Don't bludgeon the process. Not sure how you believe repeating the same thing over and over will help our discussion. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Moxy I don't think it needs to be repeated over and over. I also think the current section on her false claim could be condensed. Much of the information in the article can be found in the CBC ref and doesn't need to be repeated. Ideally if I was editing this page I would begin the article by replacing Buffy's false claim of being indigenous where the false claim use to be, in the first sentence. I would also do this at the start of her career so the reader is not clueless as to how this Italian American suddenly became an Indigenous (insert a role). I would replace the information contained in the False claim section with direct references to articles referenced in the CBC report and use the CBC report much less. I would also note it at the top of the awards section briefly and add many more awards, including all the Indigenous ones that were removed. She did in fact win them. Acknowledge the false claims where appropriate, acknowledge the accomplishments and that would be a neutral unbiased articles that is correct chronologically. 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We all understand your purpose here is to expose her.....but  that's not our purpose. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your expose is my provide facts and correct lies. What is your purpose? "Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not." 2001:569:7133:B000:29C9:9C7D:F670:B8D9 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * IP: You are misunderstanding what I said. The biography section should be chronological. The lead section is to summarize the article in the same order it is presented in the body, which is a different requirement. Say there were three long section in the body: the first para of the lead should summarize the first section, the second paragraph the second section, and the third paragraph the third section. As long as the controversy is presented in a separate section following the general biography, then it must also follow the general biographical material in the lead. This is, incidently, one of the reasons the MoS suggests that controversies not be presented in separate sections, but should rather be integrated chronologically into the biography. But either way, the exposure falls at the end of the summary, as it is the most recent event in her biography. You want to "grind an axe", but that's not our mission. Skyerise (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise I do believe in your initial post after you took it upon yourself to redo the article you ref’s WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as your rationale for your edits. I’ve posted a ref you can review if you like in the NPOV topic on this page. Your understanding of NPOV is UNDUE is incorrect. You’ve changed the chronology of the Lead and article to fit your understanding that controversial information should come after accomplishments. If information is factual NPOV is irrelevant, it goes in the correct place chronologically. It was correct before you edited it. Because information is controversial does not equate to UNDUE. I have no axe to grind. If I did I’d login and join the edit war. I would much rather discuss the facts here in the Talk page than unilaterally decide I know best. That’s why we have a Talk page to avoid situations like edit wars. I do agree that it actually better to not have an entire section dealing with her false claim of identity. It would be much better inserted in the correct place chronological, which is this the first sentence where her identity was and at the start of her career when she began to make the false claim. Also before the awards. If you’ve seen any of her awards videos (I’ve seen plenty) her false claim of being Indigenous always came before she accepted the award. I disagree that the time she was exposed is the correct place this should reside. 2001:569:7133:B000:90CA:8FB7:DB67:5CDF (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not going to continue this discussion unless you log in. Technically, editing while logged out is considered a form of sockpuppetry, as we have no way to determine whether you are doubling your voice by also !voting in this mini-RFC while logged in as well. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise I have made 0 edits and 0 comments logged in. If I don’t want to login because doing so opens me up to attacks by people with an agenda on a divisive topic, that is my prerogative not sock puppetry or doubling my voice. I’m not looking for an argument here. But you, instead of reading the talk page and joining in the discussion, decided to edit the page as you saw fit. How about respecting the opinion of other editors and not perpetuating an edit war. Your opinion is welcome, respect others. 2001:569:7133:B000:F135:2D8:D520:A779 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the clear statement in WP:BLPSTYLE, we should "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events". Moving more recent events above less recent events is explicitly considered WP:UNDUE here. Skyerise (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Recent event: Buffy exposed.
 * Original Event: Buffy lied since the 1960s
 * Should we determine the date the Titanic sank by the date it was discovered?
 * To be frank with you, the more you argue NPOV/UNDUE/incorrect chronology the more I see whitewashing, revision editing and the exact opposite of what NPOV is about. Do yourself a favour and read the essay I posted in the NPOV topic of this page. You rationales are the example of what NPOV is not. 2001:569:7133:B000:F135:2D8:D520:A779 (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Titanic was notable for its sinking; Buffy is notable for her accomplishments. "Whitewashing" is an attempt to remove material. I don't think it should be removed. WP:BLP insists that we treat living people respectfully, regardless of their actions and our opinions about their actions. It also says we should err on the side of caution. Caution says we should not put the fall before the rise or elevate the negative above the positive. I've been a member of the BLP project forever, and am very clear about how our BLP policy should apply here. Again, log in or the convo is over. Skyerise (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise by the fact you reply so quickly I can assume you haven’t read the essay on NPOV. You really should as you clearly don’t understand that because a fact is controversial does not mean it A: should be excluded or placed outside the Lead. B: NPOV does not mean controversial facts should not be presented in the proper chronological place. We present facts about BLP both controversial AND accomplishments even in BLP articles. What you are in fact doing is taking your point of view, determining controversial facts are less relevant, should be diminished in a BLP, as using your own biases to assign them the place you feel they should be. Not what NPOV calls for my friend. Let’s present facts, not our opinions on facts. 2001:569:7133:B000:F135:2D8:D520:A779 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From the fact that you think I haven't read WP:NPOV, I can assume you haven't bothered to read my user page or make yourself aware of the fact that I've been here for over 17 years. Try not to be so condescending, okay? Skyerise (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SkyeriseNo actually I did read your page yesterday. That’s why I was surprised you don’t understand NPOV and use your point of view to determine that controversial facts should be diminished. We present facts/reality. If they’re facts and controversial no issues my friend. When we insert our POV that facts controversial or accomplishments shouldn’t be presented when they are reliable and are proven facts, that needs a WP:NPOV bud. 2001:569:7133:B000:948D:29A5:BEBE:6973 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reasonable editors can understand our policies differently and not be "wrong". Your opinion is also only an opinion. Please refrain from casting aspersions. Skyerise (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise Bud. Did you not say I was sock puppeting, double voting, had an axe to grind. My opinion is you should read that NPOV essay, check the talk page before editing and because I’m IP6 assume I’m less versed in Wikipedia policies than you. 2001:569:7133:B000:948D:29A5:BEBE:6973 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I noted a relevant fact from our WP:SOCK policy. It was you who said that you are editing while logged out. I don't need to accuse you of anything because you'd already confessed! Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect again. In any event, next time check the Talk page. People might be there trying to build consensus. Coming in like you own the page, reverting people’s edits based on your ‘opinion” doesn’t look good on you. 2001:569:7133:B000:948D:29A5:BEBE:6973 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A fake RFC doesn't protect the page status quo. You actually have to open a real RFC to do that. Now that a real RFC has been opened, the article should remain at the version in place at the time the RFC tag was placed. Skyerise (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. On that you are correct. Like I said, 0 edits on the article, many comments on the talk page. You 0 comments on the talk many edits to the article. I’m fine with leaving it at that. All the best. 2001:569:7133:B000:3418:BC0A:2081:D9C (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to prove that you are better than me? I'm allowed to be bold, and I was a regular editor of the article in the past, though it's been off my watchlist for years. And I don't know how I am supposed to be convinced that you have 0 edits to the article, since you are admittedly a registered user who is editing while logged out and haven't disclosed your user name. At least I am being completely transparent! Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SkyeriseSorry can’t totally read what you wrote. Formatted in single characters on Ion my phone. If you’re upset that in my opinion you don’t edits lead me to believe you don’t understand NPOV, and you edits made the article worse, don’t sweat it. It’s one stranger”s opinion. It’s all good. We’re all allowed to have them here. 2001:569:7133:B000:1176:CC9C:8029:3753 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Later in the lead but I would also move this While working in these areas, her work has focused on issues facing Indigenous peoples of the United States and Canada from the first paragraph. Reviewing the article, the first paragraph should focus on her music career which is the main reason for her notability. Her activism and recent developments about her ancestry can be mentioned together later on in the lead. Nemov (talk)

RFC tag?
Why wasn't this made into an fully fledged RFC? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Good question! Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skyerise If you had have taken a look at the talk page before making all the edits you would have found us all here discussing it.
 * I have followed this page for years. You will find editors who have edited the page in here discussing the page, making changes, building consensus. Since Oct you will find people who have never edited the page posting their opinions on the page, removing facts and replacing them with misinformation, editors who are obviously not content experts refining the article, long term Wikipedia editors ignoring the talk page and reverting info that has already been discussed in the talk page, the page locked down with misinformation kept. I have purposely made no edits. 2001:569:7133:B000:948D:29A5:BEBE:6973 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * RfCs exist for a reason. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Does the new formal RFC start here, or will a new, section heading (or less confusing section heading) be created for it? If it starts here, do the two questions that North8000 proposed at the top of this long thread constitute the formal request? This is unclear, and any editors who might chime in who haven't been following the talk page may find this confusing. (BTW, I have been active on the IPNA project for years and have written quite a few articles on Indigenous artists. I've been watching this talk page and this discussion for months but haven't chimed in yet.) Netherzone (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it should mention that her claims of being Cree (or other Indigenous Canadian) was in the opening sentence for 20 years. Now that the investigation is out with the facts of her actual birth family, should her claims still be included with the update about the investigation? I think the sentence about the awards can go into the lead paragraph going over her awards. Chronologically, she has made these claims since she began her career so no reason to not include it at the beginning. Her claims have also been significant to her career in that she's won numerous awards for being "Indigenous" including "first Indigenous Oscar winner", Sesame Street appearance etc. These facts can be bullet listed for new editors to reference quickly. oncamera  (talk page) 23:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. The only thing I would add is that IMO none of the above is a violation of anything in relation to WP:BLP/NPOV/UNDUE and should impact the placement chronologically. If there is a reliable well sourced reference and it is factually correct and documented in 1963, the fact that any news org revealed in in 2023 is irrelevant. It took place in 1963 and that is where it belongs in the chronology of this article. Adding factual reliably sourced information that may be controversial is not a concern Re BLP, is not biased or UNDUE because it is controversial and does not violate NPOV because it may be a controversial fact. NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content 2001:569:7133:B000:4D09:1F2A:241A:C544 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I was not sure where to post my response to the RFC; it has been posted above before the heading called "RFC tag/Now a proper RFC?" Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Close?
Many folks have invested substantial time giving their thoughts on this and we don't want their efforts to go to waste and have this unresolved so we should reach a conclusion. Responses have ended a while ago and a bot took the RFC tag off as expired. Should we ask for a close.

I have no strong feelings either but gave an opinion and so would be suspect in positing a close....but making a few notes: Looks like 5 folks said first paragraph and 9 said later in the lead. Good arguments were made on both sides. IMO there are only two ways an official close could end up with "later in the lead" being likely and "no consensus" being a possibility.

What do y'all think we should do next? Ask for a close? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object if I closed this as follows:
 * "There is a consensus to cover her false claims of indigenous ancestry later in the lead (i.e. not in the first paragraph). The question choice for "later in the lead" did not get any more specific so there was no consensus for any more detailed choice (such as "third paragraph")
 * I have no strong feeling on the result but did offer an opinion, so if there is any objection to this, I'll ask for a close by an uninvolved admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Canadian English?
Not a pressing issue but on an article about a US Citizen who is not a Canadian citizen on the talk page it says that the article uses Canadian English. Noted when my revert of a bunch of changes to Canadian english got reverted. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There was no Canadian English tag on the article; it now has an American English tag. Skyerise (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There has been a Canadian English tag here since March of 2010, and the article has been using Canadian English since its creation. Per WP:RETAIN, consistent usage has already been established for over a decade. Regardless of citizenship, she will has national ties to Canada, and the English variety already used is correct. WP:RETAIN also states “An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.” Especially when the English variety used has ready been well established. 2605:B100:324:E730:99CA:E2F3:8D51:B1D8 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It can be changed by consensus. So far the consensus here is for American English. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to change thus far. One editor is not “consensus”. “Consensus” does not happen in 30 minutes. 2605:B100:324:E730:99CA:E2F3:8D51:B1D8 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a pressing issue but per my OP above, I think that US English is the obvious logical choice. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree " US English is the obvious logical choice." Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * US English is what's best here. WP:RETAIN says we should generally keep a particular style *if* "there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another".  When she was thought to be American+Canadian, there was no valid reason to switch between styles, as both styles were equally valid.  Now, there's a clear and obvious reason to switch to US, as she's only American, and not Canadian.  WP:RETAIN exists in part to stop endless edit wars on countless articles, where different styles could be equally justified, and editors want to impose their own style on an articles.  Nobody is imposing their own style here, but rather, we're just asking to use the style of the country of the subject.  --Rob (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's not use debunked sources
We are continuing to use sources that are clearly discredited. The PBS page for the "Carry It On" (so-called) documentary is an example of this, that is used in the second sentence of the current lead. The page references her repeatedly as indigenous and how speaking out as an indigenous person harmed her career. It's been reliably sourced that she's not indigenous, and her claims of being indigenous helped (and didn't hurt) her career. I didn't remove the sentence from the lead, as I know I would just be reverted. But, if it must be kept, lets do it with a source that actually checks its facts, and doesn't just repeat whatever the subject says of themself. --Rob (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source and the sentence are two different questions.  The lead should be a summary of the article and typically does not need sources.  Also, I don't think that the veracity of that sentence is in question. I'll take the source off.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Britannica and Canadian Encyclopedia articles
Britannica still retains Canadian-origin position, despite a recent update of the entry.

The Canadian Encyclopedia has adopted the current consensus. JohndanR (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Billboard "Best New Artist 1964"
I've been trying to find a reference for the Billboard Best New Artist award. There has been an inconclusive discussion on this topic before (see Archive 3). Buffy's website currently says "1964 – Billboard Magazine’s Best New Artist". I've tried my best hunting around Google search and the only thing I've found related to this topic is a scan of Billboard from March 27th 1965. On page 65 under Singles Reviews it says "Buffy Sainte-Marie-Until It's Time For You To Go. Warm delivery of class material from the gal voted as 'No.1 Folk Singer' in Billboard's 1964-1965 DJ Poll". This seems a very plausible contender for the Billboard award which over time has become misstated. I haven't been able to find any other sources for Billboard awards for 1964 or 1965, but maybe they're out there? Anyone know how to find that? Seaweed (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Buffy St. Marie did not win the Billboard Best New Artist award because no such award existed. The March 27, 1965, issue of Billboard magazine featured that year's "Billboard Disk Jockey Poll" (p. 54). For the first time in that poll, "[The magazine] asked air personalities and programmers to vote only within the musical categories with which they deal professionally every day." In other words, for the folk category, only folk deejays were consulted. Buffy won in the "New Female Vocalist – Folk" category. "Favorite new female vocalist" went to Petula Clark in the singles poll and Vikki Carr in the LPs poll.  Tkbrett  (✉)  14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well spotted! I should have read that edition more thoroughly! So although her website says "1964 – Billboard Magazine’s Best New Artist", it should say something like "1965 - Billboard Magazine's Favorite New Female Vocalist – Folk"? Seaweed (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and subsequent sources have similarly misreported it without digging any further. Even Billboard misreported it! Confusingly, Billboard issued two unique issues on March 27, 1965. The one with the poll was in the standard weekly issue, and there was also a special campus issue.  Tkbrett  (✉) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra explanation. Seaweed (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been searching for the origin of this false claim. It seems to be everywhere, including on Buffy's entry at the Canadian Encyclopedia, in Andrea Warner's authorized biography (chapter 6) and even in the Fifth Estate's exposé (2:59). The Billboard Music Award for Top New Artist was first awarded in 1977, making a 1964 win an impossibility.
 * The earliest instance I have found is a 1969 article, where it states that "In 1965, Billboard magazine named her the most promising female vocalist of that year". This seemed to be a simple error, as other 1960s articles properly reported that she won a poll among folk DJs. After 1969, I could not find anything until 1993, when an article in Tacoma's The News Tribune repeated the "best new artist" of 1964 bit. Andrea Warner cites old Billboard issues directly in the authorized biography, but for this claim she does not. Instead, she includes a footnote to the 2004 book Saskatchewan First Nations. Buffy's entry, written by the musicologist Colette P. Simonot, repeats the claim but does not source it (p. 118).  Tkbrett  (✉)  12:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just watched part of a video on YouTube from an event held at the Senate of Canada on April 3rd 2017 where Buffy Sainte-Marie said the following at 1:20: "...and in 1964 I made my first album and was named Billboard Magazine's best new artist, that was the year the Beatles came to North America...". That's quite a statement. Seaweed (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In 1964, the Beatles were listed as the "most promising artist" among "singing groups and/or duos" (p. 37). That was in the April 11, 1964 issue (pp. 36–39 of the original; pp. 12–15 of the PDF). Buffy did not appear because her debut album came out that same month.
 * This reinforces for me that future editors will need to be vigilant in editing this page. Sainte-Marie is obviously an unreliable narrator in regards to her life, but ostensibly reliable sources – like Andrea Warner's authorized biography or a book published by the University of Regina – are weak in their coverage of Sainte-Marie's life by taking many of her claims at face value.  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)