Editing Farley Mowat (section)

==Criticism==

In a 1964 book review published in ''[[Canadian Field-Naturalist]]'',<ref name="Banfield">{{cite news| author=Banfield, A.W.F. |date=1964| title=Book Review: 'Never Cry Wolf' by Farley Mowat. 1963| work=Canadian Field-Naturalist| volume= 78| pages=52–54| url= https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28020348  | access-date = May 9, 2014}}</ref> [[Frank Banfield]] of the [[National Museum of Canada]], a former Canadian Wildlife Service scientist, compared Mowat's 1963 bestseller to [[Little Red Riding Hood]], stating, "I hope that readers of ''Never Cry Wolf'' will realize that both stories have about the same factual content."<ref name="Banfield" /> Mowat responded to Banfield's criticisms in a letter to the editor of the ''Canadian Field-Naturalist'' and signed it "Mowat's wolf Uncle Albert".<ref name="Uncle Albert">{{cite news|date=1964|author=Uncle Albert|title= Letter to the editor| work=Canadian Field-Naturalist| volume= 78| page=205|url= https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28020510 | access-date = May 9, 2014}}</ref> [[L. David Mech]], a wolf expert, is cited by Warner Shedd, a former regional executive of the [[National Wildlife Federation]], as noting that no scientist, Mowat notwithstanding, has ever encountered a wolf population that primarily subsists on small prey, as claimed in Mowat's book. Mech additionally states, "...Mowat is not a scientist, and his book, although presented as truth, is fiction."<ref name="OWLS">{{cite book | author = Shedd, Warner | title = Owls Aren't Wise and Bats Aren't Blind: A Naturalist Debunks Our Favorite Fallacies About Wildlife | year = 2000 | page = [https://archive.org/details/owlsarentwisebat00warn/page/336 336] | isbn = 0-609-60529-1 | url = https://archive.org/details/owlsarentwisebat00warn/page/336 }}</ref>

''[[The New York Times Book Review]]'' published a dismissive review of ''[[People of the Deer]]'' on February 24, 1952.<ref name="eastern2">{{cite book|last=Mowat|first=Farley|title=Eastern Passage|year=2010|isbn=978-0-7710-6491-3|page=60}}</ref> ''[[Canada's History|The Beaver]]'' was quite hostile in its first review. The second review, by [[Erling Porsild|A. E. Porsild]], was equally hostile, questioning the existence of the [[Ihalmiut]].<ref>Eastern Passage, pp. 66–67</ref> Despite a few harsh reviews, however, ''People of the Deer'' was generally well received, published in the ''[[Atlantic Monthly]]'' and "showered with glowing international reviews".<ref name=uphere>Querengesser, T. (September 2009). [http://www.uphere.ca/node/442 Farley Mowat: Liar or Saint?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130220124959/http://www.uphere.ca/node/442 |date=February 20, 2013 }} ''Up Here''. Retrieved on: 2012-12-27.</ref>

[[Duncan Pryde]], a [[Hudson's Bay Company]] trader who pioneered the linguistic study of [[Inuktitut|Inuit languages]], attacked Mowat's claim to have picked up the language quickly enough in two months to discuss detailed concepts such as [[shamanism]], pointing out that the language is complex and required a year or more for Europeans to master the basics. Pryde said that when Mowat visited his post at [[Baker Lake, Nunavut|Baker Lake]] in 1958, 10 years after Mowat's earlier trip, he could barely speak a single word in the Inuit language.<ref>{{cite book|author= Pryde, Duncan| title=Nunaga: Ten Years of Eskimo Life| location= New York|publisher= Walker and Co |date=1975| page= 33}}</ref>

''[[Canadian Geographic]]'' published excerpts from ''[[The Farfarers]]'' with the comment that it was "a highly speculative blend of history and archeology. In it, Mowat again draws upon Norse sagas, the chronicles of Irish monks, and accounts of Roman travellers, as well as the works of modern historians and archeologists. It is both detailed and, as with all early history, sketchy. The written record for much of the period covered is scant and the archeological record spotty. Still, such speculative writing can suggest avenues of exploration and study for future researchers. No professional archeologists are known to share Mowat's theories but that does not disturb him. A literary gadfly for much of his long career, Mowat is happy to stir up debate and challenge academics to match the visions that he champions and defends with such vigour and relish."<ref>Farley's Version, Canadian Geographic, September 1998</ref>