Talk:Iron Eyes Cody

Reference to movie Sitting Bull?
Sitting Bull (film) cites Iron Eyes Cody as an actor. Should that be included in the filmography here?Treethinker (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Question of Native American-ness
Didn't it ultimately come to light that this person was not, in fact, a Native American? If he was, this article could use some fleshing out re: his heritage.

No, he was a Cherokee.

Hey, you guys, sign your stuff. Anyway, it appears from http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/ironeyes.htm that he was not a Native American until he decided to become one early in his adulthood, and he never looked back. That is worthy of respect and has precedents. Hmmm. ;Bear 19:06, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * Does it deserve enough respect to list him in the Native American actors category? I don't know enough to advise one way or the other, but it seems odd that I don't see anyone discussing the issue here or at the category discussion.--superlusertc 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is significant reason to be suspicious of either side here. One news article claims that, for instance,  there was an ongoing dispute between Cody and half-sister-- who herself appears a decade younger. We have largely only secondary and tertiary sources; at best,  one could say strong questions about Cody's ancestry have been raised. On this basis, I will weaken the final sentence of the first paragraph,  which seem to me,  just too declarative. KenThomas (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding his and the cited many others, claimed origin as Cherokee-Cree, my guess is that "Cree" should read "Creek" since Crees are from Canada while Creeks lived close to the Cherokees. As he is actually Italian it makes little difference I guess. But Cree and Creek are two very different cultures. (User: Dresdin Archibald)

Birthyear
The birth date given at the top of the article and the birth year category don't match. Which one is right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.64.176.214 (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Changed back in October 2006 with no source given. I'm changing it back. -- nae'blis 21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

in popular culture
That he comes up so much in popular culture is significant. I'd love to get that list back in, but you're right, there should be citations. Kingturtle (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link
Why should the official video link be removed? I don't understand why an official link to the official site should be removed while someone who wants hits on google video should stay. -- blm07 01:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The video of the commercial he is in should stay, and it has not been removed. Promotional sites for KAB should be in the KAB article, not in this one. Kingturtle (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The KAB link DID have the video. -- blm07 03:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be listed as a Native American regardless of genetic ancestry.
The man lived and died as a Native American for godssake! If he lived and died as a Native American and was accepted as such by his tribe, then he has every right to be listed as a Native American just as people of only Hindu ancestry have every right to consider themselves, and be grouped on Wikipedia as, English. The Mummy (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Identity" is not defined purely in genetic terms.  I have also removed the "Fraudster" category, since claiming a different ethnic heritage does not qualify as either civil or criminal fraud. --Bookgrrl holler/ lookee here  01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing heritage and religion. We "Native Americans" don't decide one day to switch from being Ojibway to being Cree. You are born Ojibway. It's a culture, not a religion. Iron Eyes Cody was Italian, period. Whether or not he was accepted by a community doesn't change the fact that he's Italian. We accept many non-native people's into our communities but that does NOT allow them to call themselves Indians. He should NOT be listed as one. Just because you like our culture or think it's cool, doesn't give you a free pass to assimilate our culture and use it to benefit yourself as he so clearly did. Who would have hired him as an Italian actor? He obviously benefitted greatly from claiming a fake heritage so he also deserves to be labelled a fraud as obtaining financial gain through misrepresentation of ones race is a clear cut case of fraud, regardless of whether an action was started or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.249.27 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alleged 'fraudster', then possibly, though there would need to be some sourcing for the allegation - perhaps by those who believe they were 'injured' by his actions? Labeling him as such in the article seems to require that there are 3rd party sources that describe him as this.


 * While he was not actually a Native himself, I've added the NorthAmNative template to this page, as the subject of this article is clearly relevant to those interested in Native American topics. Robofish (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What about impersonator or imposter? He is already listed as the latter. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Born an Italian American he was an actor dressed as a Native American. As he was accepted into many Native American tribes using the blood brother ritual he became a Native American. The first tribe accepted him in 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:85d9:5d62:e14a:adfd (talk • contribs)

Indian Language Advisor
I was shocked to see in the credits of Unconquered (1947 film),  him listed as Indian language advisor. It seems to me this is an example of just how far Hollywood was taken in by his charade. I think it’s something that should be in the article - Would it be acceptable to use the credits of the film as a source? Dlabtot (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Poor Evidence
As a wikinoob, not confident about making edits to the actual page. I'm making note of the claim that the "Crying Indian" add was effective in reducing litter by 88%. The cited source leads nowhere. Also, there are sources (e.g.: https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-indian-crying-environment-ads-pollution-1123-20171113-story.html ) suggesting that that campaign was not effective in that it unloaded responsibility for disposable food packaging waste from the manufacturers onto the consumers—a planned effort along the lines of "guns don't kill, people do." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappycollins (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "this ad played a significant role in reducing litter" and "this ad was made by corporations to shift the causes of pollution from themselves to consumers" can both be true, particularly if "litter" is understood in the sense of individuals throwing away stuff on streets, roads, parks, etc. That being said, the current source mentioned in the article (Priceonomics) doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source (in fact one of its "sources" is none other than Wikipedia.) It does, however, cite a webpage of the ANA Educational Foundation for the 88% claim: https://aef.com/classroom-resources/social-responsibility/ad-council-campaigns-made-difference/pollution-prevention/ (the Priceonomics site links to a now-defunct version of that webpage, hence why it "leads nowhere.") I doubt the AEF is a rock-solid source, but it'd certainly make more sense to cite it directly rather than use Priceonomics as an inept, unnecessary intermediary. --Ismail (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Reagan's first inaugural parade, 1981
I would love to see, with appropriate documentation, a mention of his appearance in the above. I know it to have been the case, as I was there, and he drew the second-biggest crowd reaction of the day to that of Reagan himself. If anyone has a reliable source for this, such as a daily paper from the next day (January 21, 1981), then it very much needs to be included in the article. 2600:1004:B14D:D5E9:0:48:BD90:5C01 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)