Talk:Grey Owl

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of British Columbia supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Imposter?

What is the logic behind including Grey Owl in this category? I am not all that familiar with him, but nothing in the article seems to motivate category inclusion. Yeah, he seems to have claimed a voluntary identity that some people thought was inappropriate, but his reason for noteriety seems to be his writing, not any such identity claim per se.

Obviously, it's annoying for my edit of removing the category to be described as vandalism, in rather bad faith. But that's just annoying, and doesn't affect whether the category fits per se. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Who described it as vandalism?Vizjim 06:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• • "Impostors in this category are individuals whose principal claim to noteriety is in having passed themselves off as a person or type of person whom they are not." Grey Owl is an individual known for two things - 1) saving the beaver and 2) pretending to be from a First Nations tribe, despite having actually been born in Hastings. Do a quick google and make your own mind up for which he is currently most well-known. Grey Owl is a famous impostor. As such, he goes into the category "Impostors". I find it extremely difficult to understand the problem with this, hence the flamebait comment about nonsensical changes, for which I apologise.Vizjim 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that most impostors make up everything, and for personal gain or out of some delusion. Grey Owl lied about his ancestry, but he didn't lie about living in the wilderness nor about his belief that the wilderness and its wildlife should be preserved. If he felt he needed to pretend to be a First Nations tribesman to do that, then so be it. I think that's the general feeling re this man.

Grey Owl may very well have been an "impostor" by definition, and I will accept that. He did indeed fool the world, even the King of England, whom he patted hardily on the back. However, it should be noted that Belaney was accpeted by the people of Bear Island as one of their own, and in this regard we can see that culture sometimes surpasses blood. That Grey Owl is, according to Vizjim, more remembered as an impostor than a visionary conservationist is purely the fault of society. In my earliest learnings of Grey Owl and in studies of his work while in school, the lessons focused on Grey Owl as an environmental legend, not as an impostor. That he was First Nation or not was/is of little consequence. Choosing the impostor role as the primary means of remembering Grey Owl is not only foolish, but it disregards some of the world's earliest and most influential conservationism. Furthermore, categorizing Grey Owl under "Literary hoaxes" is incorrect. There was nothing hoaxed about his writing. I've removed that categorization. --Bentonia School 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using the word "fraud" is that it carries a negative connotation, even the imputation of criminal activity, by which we are then likely to judge the person involved. I wish there were another term to designate this early pioneer in highlighting the dangers of ignoring human impact on the biosphere. Perhaps something along the lines of "nom d'activisme" would suit better. I could be wrong, of course. 49.183.189.223 (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

An invention?

The section "Grey Owl had been an invention" is misleading. The name was given to Belaney long before he was even in the public eye. He had lived with the people of Bear Island and throughout the Canadian Sheild for a long time before anyone had any idea of his work. He trapped beaver for years before he chose to stop. He stopped trapping beaver long before he became famous. He wished to conserve the Canadian wilderness long before he toured England. He wrote short magazine pieces long before he was convinced to write his famed books. The persona of Archie Grey Owl is as true as anything else about him. The fact that Grey Owl is remembered more for not being truthful about his personal history than for his immensely ahead-of-its-time work is evidence of societal fault. That this fault has seeped into Wikipedia is not overly surprising. I'm editing this section. --Bentonia School 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not there to correct societal faults, nor to correct reality. Archie Belaney posed as Grey Owl for complex reasons, but that does not mean it was not a pose. The section on his environmental work could certainly do with expanding, but that is not a reason to delete the correct information from this page. Vizjim 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it as incorrect, and history does as well. Any current ideas about Grey Owl as an "invention" are purely in the minority. All of his posthumous accolades attest to that. Perhaps I was rash in deleting the section, but I find the original article to have been leaning more toward a negative representative of Grey Owl with very little neutrality in the writing. I see as well that the section has been brought back. I gladly debate that; the wording is simply misleading. Grey Owl lived fully the life of a First Nation and was completely accepted not only by the Ojibwe but by various other tribes as well. I move for the section to be removed or the language reworded. --Bentonia School 12:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with this statement: "Archie Belaney was a white Englishman who pretended to be Native". Is there something you see as false in that statement? Vizjim 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Although Archie Belaney was an Englishman with no Native blood, he took on the persona of a First Nations Native and lived as one in the Ontario wilderness for nearly twenty years [I'll double check this; I'm certain it was 20 years though]. In doing so, Belaney led others to believe that he was of half-Native origin. It was in fact, however, the Ojibwe with whom Belaney lived for a time that gave him the name Grey Owl." --Bentonia School 14:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checked. Yes, Grey Owl lived in the Temagami and elsewhere in northern Ontario from 1907 to 1927. --Bentonia School 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we've agreed that he pretended to be Native. Can you explain why that fact should be censored from the article? I'm all for expanding the section regarding his environmental activities, by the way. Vizjim 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however my problem was that the article read in a negative manner, as if the author was somehow offended by the fact that Belaney fooled everyone. I don't believe in any respect that the fact should be ignored, but it shouldn't have been the driving element of the article either, especially since Grey Owl has come to be an icon in spite of his misleading. So, what shall we do about the wording? Are we in agreement with my proposed edit? Anything you want to add or subtract? And regarding the environmentalism of Grey Owl, let us work on that. I'll try to have something put together within the next couple of days. --Bentonia School 17:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read "Devil in Deerskins" by Anahareo, and "Wilderness Man" by Lovatt Dickson, the latter of which is good on the harm done by the revelation of Belaney's imposture. Anahareo's account is very romantic, but also inadvertently reveals just how little Belaney had to do with the tribes he exploited. I think that the short "Exposure" section does justice to this other side of Belaney's life, while the Biography and Posthumous Recognition sections explain what was good about his life and work, and the ways that it has subsequently been celebrated. Vizjim 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Cry of the Ancients" was written by a different Grey Owl, who died around 1959.

Name

So, what was this person's name -- "Grey Owl" or "Archibald Belaney"? It's the sort of question that comes up from time to time (sometimes several times for one person, e.g. Sean Combs). It's a fraught question that is wrapped up questions of personal identity, who gets to name a person, and much else, and in a lot cases is not always easy to answer.

I'm asking because an editor (User:CorbieVreccan) went through the article and changed instances of "Grey Owl did such-and-such" to "Belany did such-and-such".

I'm a bit suspicious of this because the person also changed the lede sentence from

Grey Owl (or Wa-sha-quon-asin, from the Ojibwe wenjiganooshiinh, meaning "great horned owl" or "great grey owl") was the name Archibald Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938) chose for himself when he took on a First Nations identity as an adult.

to

Grey Owl was the name British-Born Archibald Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938) chose for himself when he took on a fraudulent First Nations identity for himself as an adult.

which I gather from the use of "fraudulent" and so on that the editor doesn't like this person very much. But I'm not sure it is helpful to reader. It's helpful it the person was unquestionably and incontrovertibly a charlatan and a montebank primarily, and we want to get that across to the reader as quickly and forcefully as possible. My take is that the person's case is little more complicated than that, and I generally prefer to just present the facts let the reader make up her own mind about stuff like this.

The person made a number of other changes also, which I haven't examined in detail. Any input on those edits would be welcome, but my three proximate questions are:

• How should this person be referred to after he changed his name, "Grey Owl" or "Belamy"?
• If "Belamy", should we consider moving this page to "Archibald Belaney"?
• How do people feel about the lede change? I'm not a fan, but willing to hear discussion. Herostratus (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the ping. Yes, he is most notable these days for being an imposter. His conservationist work made an impact, but it was adversely affected by his many scandals - the identity theft, bigamy, and outrageous lies primarily. Just as he didn't bother to legally divorce most of his wives before marrying new ones, I kind of doubt that he made the name change legal, but I'm not sure. He is primarily known as the pseudonym so, I think the article should probably stay at this name, even though it seems more correct to have his name in the article as his real name except when referring specifically to publication credits under the alias.

I don't think it's appropriate to have an Ojibwe translation of "grey owl" here as it was not sourced that he ever went by an Ojibwe name, or that anyone ever called him by an Ojibwe name, or if they did, which one that might have been. If you look up-page, there was speculation as to what "Grey Owl" might translate to. That's OR and unsourced, so I think we should stick to the two names we know he used - his birth name and the alias he assumed later in life. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Should we move the article? I don't think we can get a reasonable result from Google Ngram (which I lean on a lot for WP:COMMONNAME questions, because "Grey Owl" is also a common noun. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as there are redirects I'm not attached to which name it's at. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Right... but it seems wrong to have an article titled "X" that says "Y is such-and-such...". They should match IMO. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. If you want to move it I'll support that and rewrite the opening. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am of two minds, and as you say since redirects exist, meh. Leave it I guess, absent input from other editors. Herostratus (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that there's still some disagreement about this. Thinking just about the name thing, well, there are are thousands of people who've changed their names to names usually associated with a different ethnicity or culture, and how do we handle those?

• Ram Dass -- Ram Dass is "really" Richard Alpert
• deadmau5 -- deadmau5 is "really" Joel Zimmerman
• Lea Michele -- Lea Michele is "really" Lea Sarfati
• Rachel Zoe -- Rachel Zoe is "really" Rachel Rosenzweig
• Lorde -- Lorde is "really" Ella Marija Lani Yelich-O'Connor
• Bob Dylan -- Bob Dylan is "really" Robert Zimmerman

And there are thousands more if you include people who emigrated to America and anglecized their names. Most of our articles on people like this don't have passages referencing these changes as being fraudulent or constituting cultural appropriation or any other pejorative characterization.

Guy's been dead for 80 years, and whatever ill he's done is done. We can't change that and anyway we are not here to proclaim the WP:TRUTH to our audience. Let's stick to the facts and let the reader decide if he was a scaramouche and a charlatan, if his identity change was odious or not, and so forth. If he was the reader will surely come to understand this from a neutral presentation of the facts.

Meantime I think we should stick to our usual approach for other name-and-culture-changers and be more like "He changed his name" rather than "He fraudulently changed his name" and so forth. If Bob Dylan is not in Category:Impostors I would question whether this guy should be. And so on. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

With this guy, though, he didn't just change his name. He fabricated a false identity, and this false identity became the basis for the false "Native Wisdom" and "Traditional First Nations Environmental Teachings" he built his career upon. Bob Dylan and, as far as I know, the others you list above didn't do that; their name changes are in the vein of stage names. Even Ram Dass is in the tradition of religious converts taking new names - he didn't try to pass himself off as South Asian. Belaney did try to convince people he was Native American, and as there was nothing particularly groundbreaking about his environmental work, and some of it was actually harmful, over time this has become the most notable thing about him. The recent edits have attempted to minimize this important factor - that he is a famous imposter.

I concur that this should stay at Belaney's stage name of Grey Owl, as it's the name he was best known as, and the name his books were published under. BUT, I also think it's important that the role this name change played in his assumption of a false backstory and commission of ethnic fraud also be included in the lede, as it was not just an innocent stage name. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Neptune's Trident: have you even read the article? The fact that he fabricated a Native identity for himself, and that he is a famous imposter, is sourced all throughout the article. This edit summary is simply untrue:[1] Add to that your removal of this article from relevant categories, where it has been for quite a while, and I have to ask why you're trying to bury the most relevant issue here. The guy was not a groundbreaking naturalist. He was a fraud. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for showing your agenda, you obviously have some sort of bias against this subject because of political correctness or you're perhaps just another social justice warrior. Wikipedia is about being impartial, neutral, not having an agenda or an axe grind, you clearly have an agenda. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you haven't addressed any of the concerns here. Rather you have once again resorted to personal attacks and WP:Incivility. There is no reason for your edits to stand, but I have given you a chance to discuss them. Apparently, you don't want to do so. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. I see the merit of both sides. He really wasn't all like "I'm taking the name Grey Owl because I want to be an Indian from now on and I reject my old identity of Archibald Belaney". He was more like "I'm Grey Owl, I'm an Indian, my mother's ancestors came over the Siberian land bridge or whatever, and who is this Archibald Belaney you speak of?". But does that matter much? The latter is just a way of taking a new identity with a little more internal moxie. He wasn't just playing Indian. He became an Indian in his own mind -- I think (impossible to know someones internal state).

Incidentally FWIW Bob Dylan did at first tell people that his real name was Dylan, that he was from Arizona, that he had traveled the country as a roustabout, and so on. He did have to give that up though as people began dig deeper. Touré tried to hide that his "real" name is Touré Neblett; he contacted us about this. Touré's an African name but Neblett is not. Is Touré fraudulently assuming an African identity? His article doesn't say that and shouldn't IMO.

But Grey Owl's case goes quite a bit deeper. He did make up a lot of stuff up and stick to it. I'm thinking that this is stuff he wanted to be true to the point that it seemed half-true to him. That's a little different than just plain fraud and impostering I think. I'm trying to think of similar cases and can't right off. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that about Dylan and Touré. Dylan doesn't surprise me, though, as he has gone in for the self-mythologizing. Not to the extent of Belaney, however. With Belaney it was way more than the "Land Bridge, so all Indigenous" thing. In at least one bio interview that we have cited (and he repeated in other interviews) the lie that one of his parents was Apache. [Lovat Dickson. Wilderness Man: The Strange Story of Grey Owl, New York: Atheneum, 1973, p. 3] Before we had the Internet, and before all the reserves and reservations had phone service, you could pull this off. Someone could go to Canada and say they were from a tribe in the Southwest, where the culture is as different as from that of England, and the First Nations people there would not know. Now, we'd just pick up the phone or email someone, or ping them on Facebook. So, yes, he fabricated, based on elaborate, specific lies, not just vague theories. It's just that at that time either no one checked, or he was dealing with people who didn't know how to check. Among Indigenous folks, he's seen as the same as Iron Eyes Cody (aka Espera Oscar de Corti) - A Sicilian who stuck to his stage persona, which became his daily persona, till he died, even telling his children he was Native. Which was sad for the family he cut them off from. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 14:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Another point I want to stress here, is that, unlike Dylan claiming to be from Arizona, an Englishman claiming to speak for the Ojibwe is really serious, especially during a time when Native people were really not being given the opportunity to speak for themselves. For people unfamiliar with Native communities, this probably seems like a good thing on his part. But from my perspective as someone who is a participant in these contemporary Native communities, it's actually not a good and noble thing because he presented misinformation and stereotypes, some of which are still having to be corrected. There is such an ongoing problem with non-Native voices replacing Native ones both historically and in contemporary media, academia, and here on Wikipedia. So, even though this is eventually explored in the article, it needs to be indicated in the lede for this reason. I apologize for repeating myself here; I just know that not everyone understands the level of fraud that took place in Belaney's case, and those like it, and how these misrepresentations have harmed accurate representation of, and accurate information about, the communities in question. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you say, 'Yes, he is most notable these days for being an imposter.' But other people might know him for other reasons, for example his books.

I wonder if it is right that you judge him with today's views about cultural appropriation. Was he responsible for the fact that native voices were not heard in white media at the time? Could it be that his stereotypes were an enhancement compared with the traditional view of 'Indians' as either dangerous enemies or naive and primitive people from the past?

That he even lied some of his wives about his ancestry was rude, but Susanna Egan suggests in her book Burdens of Proof that several Anishinaabeg suspected that Grey Owl / Belaney was from non-native origin, but that they did not really bother. Bever (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Are any of the "voices" so loudly opining on this subject First Nation or Native American, or is this just, as so often, "white folks" co-opting their "interests", or people ver involved in other nation's or races controvercies on similar issues that may not apply here? It seems that the nation he lived among considered him one of their own, are we not imposing a very "white" concept of identity and belonging here, that might need balancing? This is a question I am not qualified to answer, but I have enough experience of other cultures divergent views on these things. Plainly some above feel they are, this I question. We must be careful not to fall into nineteeth century concepts of racial identity. It is possible to "convert" to Judaism, in some opinions but not in others', is it possible to convert to "First nationhood"? If you see my question as spurious, maybe you should first draw on relevant anthropological opinion, especially that local to the issue. Is there a valid "Post Modern" angle here?188.251.73.56 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. We rely on the sources. There is no need to speculate here. Members of the Indigenous wikiprojects are involved and familiar with community consensus on the topic. Those of us who work on these articles have seen over time who knows the material. While it is inappropriate to inquire about or discuss any Wikipedian's culture or ethnicity, yes, we have Native Wikipedians working on these articles, utilizing Native sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that as exactly the issue underlying my question, and an issue worth raising. But the secondary issue was using strongly judgemental language, even if from a native editor, perhaps as far away as the Apaches, but also far away in time from the people whose opinion really matters, and we have a witness just above with a reported opinion that the first nation he was closest to, and maybe others, were wise to the truth and unconcerned. Many non western(ised) peoples do not see identity as "we" do. There are many ways to "become another" where that other is a nation, a gender or even a species, either temporarily or permanently in many cultures' realities (as a transgender individual I am very alert to that). Therefore I question the very judgemental varnish that has been purposely daubed over a previous version, I would say by a single hand. Genetic "belonging" is a very dangerous lodestone, I can trace my paternal Irishness both in documentation back many hundreds of years, and by DNA way further, I qualify for nationality, but have never lived there. Is a dubliner with south asian parents less irish. If the nation accepts them, and gives them a passport she is irish. Q.E.D. Despite my english accent, but because perhaps of the importance of my relatives in the struggle for Irish nationhood, and the fact that I left the UK forever decades ago to live in Portugal, they feel free to share with me their dislike of the english. So even "closer to home" we see how, to quote a jew speaking for a black man "it ain't necesssarily so". An encyclopedic article should not reflect what is actually a minority, academically driven, local and topical (in large part) viewpoint, epecially when an individual uses it to speak "on behalf of" and about people far from them in time and space, perhaps.

It may be said that he lied, he was plainly a fantasist, who fantasised in one culture, who might understand the power of dreaming, but then had to answer for it reluctantly in another culture entirely, in the service of a higher cause (by current standards even more than then, except among natives), and now again he answes in another time as well, this time must be judicial, not judgemental.

I have a lot of "aboriginal" friends right across the planet (including N and S America), (including family members by marriage) I'm sure many of them would like me to make this point.

His women and addiction issues, well plenty of dead celebrities on here have had them played down. Alan Watts leaps to mind, his well attested and published vices were very hagiographically swept aside last time I read his article. But he is a "man of the moment" (Despite claiming to be a buddhist, and speaking for them long before he was accepted as one by a small minority of westernised authorities, some of them with dark clouds over them. I feel something important is being violated, and race, that "rough beast", "slouches out".

Therefore I make no apologies for arguing at length, if I have typos, I blame the fact that my spellcheck is stuck in portuguese. In front of "expats" here I avoid talking english, thanks to my deep tan they take me for portuguese, although my papers are lost in Lisbon, am I a fraud, after all I do it on purpose for a "dastardly" reason? (I don't like them any more than many locals do). My neighbours consider I belong - to this mountain, their "nation".188.82.5.148 (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) (sorry my byline got lost.

fraudulent

I removed the highlighted word from the opening of the lede:

Grey Owl was the name British-born Archibald Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938) chose for himself when he took on a fraudulent First Nations identity as an adult.

for a couple reasons.

1. It's not really up to us to make value judgements like this, whether somebody's identity is or is not fraudulent. Let the reader decide for herself.

1. We don't do this for anybody else who changed their name, even to present as a different ethnicity. John Rosenberg changed his Jewish name to Werner Erhard to present as a gentile, and a German one at that (he was American). Bob Zimmerman changed his Jewish name to the British-sounding Bob Dylan. Allan Konigsberg to Woody Allen. Chaim Witz to Gene Simmons. Conversely, Caryn Johnson changed her name to the Jewish-sounding Whoopi Goldberg -- "Her mom convinced her to use a Jewish last name, claiming it would advance her career." Margaretha Geertruida Zelle claimed her Malyasian name (Mata Hari) was given her by an Indian priestess. Alphonso d’Abruzzo to Alan Alda. Issur Demsky to Kirk Douglas. Mary Anne Evans used George Eliot so people would think she was a man.

None of these name changes from one ethnic/cultural identity to another are described as fraudulent. We don't say "Woody Allen is the name Allan Stewart Konigsberg chose for himself when he took on a fraudulent Gentile identity" and so on. So let's not make an exception here.

Also, all these people are described by their adopted names, sometimes throughout, but certainly after it became their primary name. Bob Dylan is referred to as "Dylan" even as a youth. Mark Twain mostly as "Twain" even before he changed his name. Katy Perry. Some others, though, are referred to by their birth name until their name change. Anyway, we also want to use "Grey Owl" at least in all cases where this guy used it, and I think this isn't always done in this article. Herostratus (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The difference is threefold:

1) Belaney acquired his fame directly as a consequence of the pretense. Dylan did not become famous as a "British" singer, nor did any of the other examples you mention directly trade off insights and secret knowledges supposedly gained from their supposed identity.

2) Historical context. In each of the cases you mention, a member of a group that was discriminated against took on a dominant group identity in order to escape the consequences of prejudice. (Mata Hari is the one exception, and there are some interesting power dynamics going on there).

3) First Nations identity is a legally protected category, and was even in the 1930's. Grey Owl did not have the legal right to take on a First Nations identity. This is not a matter of value but of law. His identity was legally fraudulent.

On the question of when to use each of his names, which is a good point - the rule should probably be to use "Belaney" whenever talking about the man in life, since he seems never to have referred to himself as Grey Owl outside his public persona, but to use "Grey Owl" when talking about the books and public appearances. Vizjim (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "public persona"... I think that Mark Twain was called Sam by his friends or whatever, we still call him "Twain". George Eliot was just a pen name, but we still call her "Eliot"... so you're saying he called himself Archie or whatever around his friends? Does that even matter? Charles Schultz's friends called him "Sparky" I think, but so what? Or is it more like if he was meeting people after giving a talk as Grey Owl, he would be like "Naw, call me Archie, I'm off the clock now" or whatever? If so, that's different, but in that case he's not defrauding anyone if it's transparently a role... so which is it?

I would assume that this guy acquired fame mainly as a consequence of his writing stuff that people wanted to read, and doing so reasonably well. I don't know that he wouldn't have been reasonably successful writing and presenting as Archie Bellamy, and nobody does.

As to the rest... "power dynamics"... "legally fraudulent" ... "dominant group identity" ... enh, this sounds like political correctness talk, which doesn't have much to do with what we're about here. We're not here to Right Great Wrongs but to give the reader a short outline of his life, presented neutrally and dispassionately.

I mean, this stuff is covered in later in the article, in the "Exposure" section for instance, if not perfectly. We really want our ledes to be a plain and factual and neutral as possible, is all. Herostratus (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense as regards the lede. I've made that change (and deleted a sentence that didn't seem to belong). The other use of Belaney refers to his childhood and the period before he was known as Grey Owl, so I've left that.

Disagree. The fraud is notable. He was not First Nations. Will look at changes in article but what he did was not neutral and has to be described neutrally. He is now known as his given name, not his imposter name. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that what he did was wrong, was racial imposture, and that the fraud is notable - nobody is in disagreement on that here, probably. The question is which name is better known and more usually used to describe him. The film was titled Grey Owl. Arnand Ruffo's book was titled Grey Owl. Anahareo's book was subtitled "My Life with Grey Owl." In other words, the Mark Twain test applies. Please don't revert changes unless you can provide evidence that Grey Owl is generally and mainly referred to as Archibald Belaney. Vizjim (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to use his real name when in doubt, because that's what people started doing after he was exposed. We can't change the things that were published before the exposure (nor should we), but it just seems grotesque to support the imposture in every sentence this way. By keeping the name he published under on his books, and in quotes, and in the lede (I agree it's the main name the article should be under) we are not censoring. I don't think anything should be done to hide his assumed name. Keeping his assumed name prominent is essential. I just don't think we should cater to the delusions/imposture any more than necessary. For the sake of the people he wronged. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I've given examples of several prominent instances (all of the books, films, TV specials, etc) where his name continued to be given as "Grey Owl." You need something better than your own statement that "people started doing this" to change that. Again, I'm not disagreeing on the imposture, but when I thought about Herostratus's point about Mark Twain, Woody Allen, etc, it makes sense. Might be better to beef up any details on the negative consequences of his imposture rather than argue that it did not generate the name by which he is still best known. Vizjim (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I've introduced more about his transition in identity into the section where he transitions from trapper to conservationist (see edit summary). I still think there should be more use of his given name in text, but it's a start. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Anishinaabe wedding ceremony"

@Vizjim: Why do you think a poem by someone who wasn't there, and participation by a Haudenosaunee woman mean this ceremony was Anishinaabe? Anahareo was from a different culture, and something was clearly wrong if she thought this Englishman was Apache, er Ojibwe, er, whatever they eventually decided was sellable. I think she was in on the scam. Either that, or she knew nothing about Anishinaabe culture. I say where is the proof it was an Anishinaabe ceremony, besides his claims? I've searched in Armand Garnet Ruffo's online works about Belaney and can find nothing under "Anishinaabe" or "Ojibwe". The cited sources either aren't online, or go to search pages. Where is a source we can see for this, in order to evaluate it's credibility? If it's just Belaney's claim, it's not reliable. Where is Anahareo's description of it? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruffo is Anishinaabe himself, and draws on family memories passed down in the oral tradition (his family knew Grey Owl). You need to check out his Grey Owl: The Mystery of Archie Belaney for details - it's a wonderful, complex, book-length poem. Here's a sample: "We know Wa-Sha-Quon-Asin is not born of us, and we say nothing / For us it is of no importance. We do not waste our words, / but save them, because we know in this struggle of generations / they are our strongest medicine. This man flies for us true and / sharp, and we are thankful he has chosen our side."

For the rest, you need to refresh your knowledge of WP:OR. It's not for us to say that something wasn't what was claimed, without finding reliable published sources that dispute it. Your analysis of the dynamics is simply not relevant here: you might be right, but you and I are anonymous editors on an encyclopedia, and our analysis carries no weight. Vizjim (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

PS - Anahareo also says it was a traditional ceremony in Devil in Deerskins. I'll find my copy and cite the relevant pages. Vizjim (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, Anahareo was from a completely different culture. It's like saying a French person could say a German thing was authentic, because both are "European". I don't think the poem of opinion carries the same weight as actually knowing what the ceremony consisted of. I don't have the book here, but if we had the details, it would be pretty easy to vet. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But "vetting" is not what Wikipedia is for, as our opinion has no weight (again, WP:OR). I'm not mentioning Anahareo as a cultural insider, just someone who was there and said it was a traditional ceremony. Anyone saying otherwise is under an obligation to find WP:NOTABLE satisfying sources that dispute the claim. Vizjim (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

PS if it gets this involved and occasionally vaguely heated here, can you imagine what it's like to spend time editing the Donald Trump page?Vizjim (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you see what you just did there? You said "traditional ceremony". You are assuming a Shinob and Haudenosaunee ceremony would be the same. My point is that they are not. An Englishman and a Haudenosaunee woman doing a ceremony is not a Shinob ceremony. And yes, we do have to Vet sources. Especially on Indigenous topics where most of what has been published is unusable. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I said that she said it was a traditional ceremony. I'm not saying that she has the authority to vet anyone as to whether they are carrying out ceremony in the proper manner. It could have been a fake ceremony. It could have been someone from outside the community, or a non-Native, or the King of England officiating. Anahareo could have made it up. In any of those cases, evidence is needed to dispute something that is generally accepted in the biographies. Vizjim (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruffo is a descendant at best. If you look into his CV you will see him early on claim to be Ojibwe with no Band given only ties to communities and now he claims heritage. Ruffo has no business speaking on the whole of indian country regarding Belaney. What strikes me as most odd is the fact that she was also Algonquin so she would have known that an Ojibwe ceremony was the same thing as an Algonquin ceremony. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, finally found the relevant passage in Devil in Deerskins, and it seems that it was a blessing by a Cree chief called "Papati" in the book. Anahareo describes him as a Christian convert, so this clearly was not traditional in the way some biographers have assumed. I think describing it as "informal" in the text would work. Legally, they don't seem to have been married at any point, unless there is something later in the book I haven't found on a quick flick through, and certainly they were not married in Cree or any other tradition. Vizjim (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Improvements in the account of Grey Owl's life in the years 1928-1931

I have done some research on Grey Owl's life in the years 1928-1931 and would like to make some improvements by rewriting parts of sections “Early conservation work and change in identity” and “Work with Dominion Parks Branch” with the following objectives:

1) To document the location in which the events of 1928-1931 took place (southeastern Quebec).

2) To correct the date of the first beaver film (1930, not 1928).

3) To clarify that the interaction between Grey Owl and James Harkin of the Parks Branch concerned the first beaver film (shot in 1930 by an uncredited cameraman), not the second film (shot in 1931 by W. J. Oliver).

4) To correct the title of the first article published in Country Life ("The Passing of the Last Frontier", not "The Falls of Silence").

5) To correct the page number of cite_note-39 (124, not 101).

6) To document additional events in the years 1928-1931 (e.g. his first public lecture in Metis, his first public appearance as Grey Owl in Montreal).

I have sources for all these changes. What is the right way to proceed? Just make the changes or wait for some consensus here? Dsiedler (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Not having any reaction to my proposal, I went ahead and published the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsiedler (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"...who disguised himself as a First Nations man..."

I'm confused by this part of the first sentence of this article. My understanding, reinforced by the article First Nations in Canada, is that first nation persons are "Indigenous peoples in Canada". But Belany didn't claim to be of Canadian descent: he claimed to be the child of a Scottish father and Apache mother. My knowledge on this topic isn't extensive, but I believe the Apache were a tribe in the southwestern U.S. He also claimed he was born in Mexico, the second country south of Canada. I don't claim to be an expert, but I feel that a person born in Mexico of an Apache woman and Scottish man would have a hard time calling himself first nations.

Wouldn't it be more accurate, as well as more neutral, simply to say that he pretended to be half Indian? And he only did that in part of his life.

I followed the link from "disguised himself" to Pretendian and learned "The term is a pejorative colloquialism". Aren't we meant to avoid polemic here? I think the word "pretend" is a pretty good term for what Belany did (without the link), but an even more neutral way of expressing it would be "...who represented himself as half Indian during the latter part of his life..."

I know there is an entire issue about the use of the word "Indian" - for good reason - but in Belany's time, neither the term "first nation" nor "native American" existed. The term "Indian" was used - much as we regret this today. It is therefore anachronistic to say he disguised himself as native American: He couldn't have thought of himself using a concept that didn't exist at that time. Dsiedler (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the wording "disguised himself", I looked into the revision history and found it was a one-line change made on 2020.06.16 by user 2600:1700:8540:8CC0:78CD:41C0:1476:7A81 with no comment (link to page). The user has a total of 4 small contributions. Up to this change, the word was "pretended". I question the use of the word "disguise". The primary meaning of the word is "to give a new appearance to a person or thing, especially in order to hide its true form" (Cambridge dictionary entry). It suggests wearning a wig or a false beard. Of course there are less literal uses of the word, but what was wrong with "pretend"? This is exactly what he did in the primary sense of the word: He pretended to be the son of a Scottish man and an Apache woman. He pretended to have been born in Mexico. Maybe it's time to go back to the right word here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsiedler (talk • contribs) 09:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

After a lot of thought I believe the idiom that best expresses what Grey Owl did is "pass as": he passed as half Indian. "Pretend" is too weak: Someone can pretend to be something but no one believes it. The crucial thing about Grey Owl is that people believed and treated him as an half Indian (even other Indians) - or at least they were convinced enough to suspend disbelief. So "pass as" in the sense of “to be accepted as somebody/something” is right here.

So here is my proposal for the first sentence: "Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (English: /ˈstænsfiːld/; September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938), commonly known as Grey Owl, was a popular writer, public speaker and conservationist. Born an Englishman, he passed as half Indian for the latter years of his life, claiming he was the son of a Scottish man and an Apache woman." Dsiedler (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

In 1925, 37-year-old Belaney (now calling himself "Grey Owl", at least in some situations...

The first statement of section "Early conservation work and change in identity" is made without reference. I have checked Smith's biography (From the Land of Shadows: the Making of Grey Owl), Billinghurst's biography (The Many Faces of Archie Belaney, Grey Owl) and Anahareo's autobiography (Devil in Deerskins,) and cannot find any justification for the statement that Belaney was using the name "Grey Owl" as early as 1925. According to these sources, he only started using the name in 1930, in particular in the articles for Canadian Forest and Outdoors and in correspondance with Country Life. Dsiedler (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Canadian people who self-identify as ...

@User:Dsiedler The category is not contradictory. "Grey Owl" falsely self-identified as being Apache, that is, of Native American descent. I'm fully aware that Canadians can't be Native Americans. The category isn't claiming that "Grey Owl" was. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. I was too hasty, sorry. Grey Owl is a very weird case. Do you know of any other cases of Canadians claiming to be Native Americans?

Of course, he lived before such concepts as "Native American", "First Nations" or, for that matter, "Indigenous" (with a capital "I") existed, so strictly speaking he couldn't have identified himself with something he had no concept of. He thought of himself as half-Indian and called himself a "half-breed" - a term that has fallen out of favour. Dsiedler (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dsiedler Yes, very prominently, there was a "pretendian" controversy because the Premier of Alberta was claiming to be Cherokee. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've learned something today! I reinstated the category.

I would leave "Canadian people who self-identify as being of Indigenous descent", since this is true of him too.

If part of what is meant by "self-identify" is "feeling an affinity for", then it would not be the Apaches but rather the Temagami Ojibwa that would be the object of Grey Owl's self-identification, a people that he intimately knew and who, he claimed, adopted him. I think the Apache origin became a stratagem to deflect disbelief: If he didn't chant and dance the way the Temagami Ojibwa did, they could chalk it up to his "foreign" origins!

Perhaps a safer name for the category would be "Canadian people who falsely claim North American Native descent". I checked one definition of "self-identify" and it doesn't appear to signify anything about descent. Dsiedler (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)