Talk:Bruce Pascoe

status as Indigenous and sourcing

There seems to be serious problems with sourcing in this article. For example, we have a dozen uses of http://macquariepenanthology.com.au/BrucePascoe.html which is a web page profile of the author. Such profiles are not realiable sources. It's akin to the blurb on the back of a book, a promo profile for a speaker at a conference, or a personal web page. Information is likely based on what the subject says about themself (or is actually written by the subject).   A quick Google News search of Bruce Pascoe makes clear that it's quite contentious whether he is actually indigenous.  It's my understanding, that unlike gender, we do not automatically let people self-identify their acenstory/ethnicity however they wish. We should either remove mention of his own status, or we should show different sources saying different things, and stick strictly to third party reliable sources. I suggest simply removing mention of his ethnicity for the moment, until the topic can be covered properly. --Rob (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can you point to a WP rule that says we don't let people self-identify their ancestry? If this were applied, there would be literally thousands of articles which would need changing. Unless you can find reliable sources (i.e. not Andrew Bolt, Keith Windschuttle, anonymous Wordpress websites), or evidence that the challenge to his ancestry is being discussed in mainstream and reliable media to a great enough degree to warrant a section on the topic, then it's a non issue. Unless the issue becomes a mainstream Helen Dale/Demidenko-type "hoax revealed", then we don't challenge what a person says about their ancestry, especially in a WP:BLP. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BLP seems to indicate that we need third party reliable sources for something that's contentious. Something's contentious if it's contested. You're demand for sources would be legitimate *if* I wanted the article to say he is not indigineous. I'm not asking for that. I'm not even asking that we say it's contested in the article, at this stage. I'm saying without third party reliable sources, that we do not say anything contentious. The onus of sourcing is on those wishing to make a claim. I realize other articles have problems. Sadly, there are countless thousands of biographies filled with information sourced solely to the subject themselves. That's not ok, although usually it's irrelevant to the article. For example, there's no good source for him being born in 1947, but this is a trivial item, nobody would care to contest, though in some other bios a birth year would be very much contentious. But, his status as indigenous is important and contentious.   There's been a lot written about this author, including people who are supportive of him. If you can find some third party reliable sources to support the claim, please feel free to put them in there. I haven't edited the article yet, because I haven't found good sourcing on either side. So, I'm happy to wait to see you or others add appropriate sourcing, and if it supports the current claim, that's fine with me.   --Rob (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What is contentious about his ancestry? HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Aboriginal groups have already said he is not Aboriginal...this is why Wikipedia is not a source of reference on ANYTHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia lives and dies by its sources. Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. So, let's remove all the autobiographical/promotional sources, that make up half the sourcing. Also, we don't need strong sources to prove something is contentious per BLP on talk pages. Instead, if something is contested, then it's contentious, and any contentious claims need sourcing in the article. For example, this source (which is currently used in the article) shows Pascoe's ancestory is contentious. Now, that can not be used as a reliable source to prove/disprove a claim of ethnicity in article space (I'd be happy to remove it), but it certainly shows the issue is contentious. I find it absurd that those wanting to keep claims in the article are demanding proof that they're false before removing them. That reverses the onus of proof that WP:BLP requires. Inclusion requires sources, exclusion does not. --Rob (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I draw your attention to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. That means we don't make nasty allegations about other editors. I asked for a source to show that "Aboriginal groups have already said he is not Aboriginal". That is NOT the same as demanding proof that the ancestry claims are false. I would not do that. I checked that source you say "shows Pascoe's ancestory is contentious". It's a long article. I didn't really want to read it right now, so I searched for "contentious". It's not there. Perhaps you could point out where the article supports YOUR claim. I asked above "What is contentious about his ancestry?" I'd simply like a sourced answer (plus, perhaps, the reason some are so worried about it}. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out where the article supports YOUR claim. — Search for "The issue of Pascoe’s own Aboriginal background has also been subject to extensive research" and start reading from there. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, some people in a journal well known to be right wing and to have published anti-Aboriginal content in the past are attacking the writer, for some reason whose relevance I cannot see. The "facts" in the article need confirming themselves, and are obviously incomplete. Remember, it was once seen as very embarrassing for white Australians to have an Aboriginal past, just like a convict past. Quadrant is a very poor source for any facts related to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Pascoe has no aboriginal heritage & his claim is absurd" said Michael Mansell via Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council, re Pascoe's claim of Palawa heritage. "We do not accept Mr Pascoe as possessing any Boonwurrung ancestry at all" said Jason Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung Council. He went further to say that Pascoe "should come clean about his real ancestry & stop abusing & benefiting from our community's cultural integrity." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bk-5ACZ7P0&feature=emb_logo

It is significant that 2 of the 3 tribes that Pascoe claims to be descended from have rejected his claims. The debate surrounding Pascoe's aboriginal ancestry should be mentioned in his biog & until such time as he proves aboriginal ancestry his claim should be listed as that: a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.6.80 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to do better than a YouTube video as a source. That's just not acceptable here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "controversies" are not well sourced, which is why we have people trying to cite YouTube videos to desperately back this stuff up. It largely seems to be related to a fringe of non-Aboriginal people who mainly hate Pascoe's views about history as opposed to any vaguely neutral sources. Removing mention of the indigeneity of a prominent Aboriginal figure based on spurious, poorly-sourced claims is an obvious BLP violation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll assume you're 100% correct, and will therefore have no trouble providing third-party reliable sources. If you do (or anybody does), the claim can stay. Otherwise, it goes.   --Rob (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The sarcasm isn't productive. Not a sign of assuming good faith. While the current sourcing for Pascoe's ancestry may not be ideal, it's an awful lot better than Quadrant and a YouTube video. Neither can ever be considered reliable sources on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Given the nature of his notability - indigenous history - we should certainly mention Pascoe's own indigenous heritage. Whether is is presented as a statement of fact or a claim on his behalf is a separate matter. If "2 of the 3 tribes ... have rejected his claims", and that statement is well-sourced, that in itself is probably notable enough to mention. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the key words there are "If...that statement is well-sourced". That has not yet been shown to be the case. Aboriginal culture is an interesting thing. Hierarchies of authority did not really exist before white settlement. They are rare now, and what we really have today is a hotch potch of sometimes elected, sometimes appointed, sometimes SELF-appointed spokespeople. It's always very easy to find disagreement between various "clans". (Not the ideal word, but "tribes" is a very wrong word.) One of the claims above says "...said Jason Briggs on behalf of the Boonwurrung Council". Whether Jason Briggs, whoever he is, has the authority to speak on behalf of the Boonwurrung Council, whatever that is, is something we would need to clarify before assigning any weight to what he allegedly said. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Sorry, but you need to do better than a YouTube video as a source. That's just not acceptable here." LOL

So Michael Mansell & Jason Briggs are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.6.80 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

My words above are what I think. It's not appropriate to play the game you seem to be trying to initiate here. This isn't a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:CRIT seem quite clear to me on this issue. The whole hoo-ha about his ancestry has been driven by Bolt and Quadrant. It is not relevant to Pascoe's skills as a writer or researcher, in any case; it's a few people trying to undermine the authority of what he has written based on ad hominem criticism, because they don't like the information he has presented in a well-researched book which has become popular. He's been working and writing on Aboriginal issues and with Aboriginal organisations for decades now, and the first edition of Dark Emu was published 5 years ago - why raise his Aboriginality now? However, on a separate but related issue, I see that the article seems to have lost the bit about his Cornish ancestry, so I'll restore that bit. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the goal seems to be to discredit the book by proving that Pascoe isn't Aboriginal. I'm not sure how that works. The book stands on its own. It doesn't matter who wrote it. The message it is presenting is still there no matter what the ancestry of the author is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a biog of Pascoe that reiterates Pascoe's claims about his ancestry, claims that have been denied in 2 of 3 instances. Are you denying that this has occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.6.80 (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute about his ancestry is found in reliable sources, major mainstream newspaperes, including his own words where he said a grandmother is aboriginal and then claimed he "made a mistake". I came to Wikipedia expecting it to properly show that aboriginal ancestry are merely his claims, and that these claims are strongly disputed in reliable sources including by numerous aboriginal tribal elders. As such I have edited the article to reflect that these claims of aboriginal ancestry are merely claimed by the author and disputed by many. Wikipedia should not have false information in it, or present information as true where there is strong dispute about it. Claims by an individual that are seriously in dispute in major mainstream newspapers should be marked as such Phil153 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. It's obvious there is no consensus for it. And it always astounds me that people with right wing views think that Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun will be seen as a reliable source for this material. No better than Quadrant. (Worse actually, because it's behind a paywall.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A strong claim in a major Australia newspaper is "not a reliable source" now? And how on Earth do you infer my political views as "right wing"? Can I infer yours as "supporting fraudulent claims"? As far as Bruce Pascoe's claims of aboriginality go, there is mainstream coverage in reliable newspapers including a multitude of quotes from notable aboriginals in the very tribes he claimed to come from that claim he is a fraud/not aboriginal. His own prior claims, such as those about his grandmother being aboriginal, he has admitted himself were completely false. You might not like this, but those are the facts and Wikipedia should reflect those facts. Calling it vandalism is also a bit rich - this was a good faith attempt to update an article that I read that I found to uncritically quote to author's now strongly contested claims with no balance whatsoever, not even a hint there was a strong controversy in reliable sources. I humbly suggest you review WP:AGF. Phil153 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your source was a WP:NEWSBLOG by Andrew Bolt in a Melbourne tabloid. Not a reliable source. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil153 - I repeat "...it always astounds me that people with right wing views think that Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun will be seen as a reliable source for this material." The equivalent would be me trying to useSocialist Weekly as a source to prove that Joe Stalin was a really good bloke. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Comparing the Herald Sun to Socialist Weekly is insane and is unequivocal proof of bad faith and severe political bias on your part, clouding your editing decisions. The Herald Sun is the largest circulation newspaper in Australia [|by a large margin] and is reliable mainstream news by any definition. I agree with Laterthankyouthink that being a "news blog" reduces reliablility, however if you actually read the WP:NEWSBLOG that you linked, it says:Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals. Australia's most-read columnist - a professional journalist - making these claims in the largest circulation newspaper in Australia means they rise to the level of a reliable source; they are fact-checked by multiple sources and lawyers. They are not off the cuff opinions. Note that I am not suggesting we include the proof of fraud, nor did I do so in my edit; I merely suggested that we note that the claims of aboriginality are in doubt, doubts that are published in reliable source and by multiple authoritative aboriginal sources. Phil153 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"The Herald Sun is...reliable mainstream news by any definition." No, it's not, and you being unable to see the problem says more about you than about Pascoe. I find that paper an excellent source for news on the footy. It's value is also diminished by the fact that it's behind a paywall. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

wtf is wrong with quoting Quadrant or the Herald Sun? Comparing them to Socialist Weekly is absurd. It seems that there's a deliberate attempt to censor information about Pascoe's disputed claims of aboriginality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.245 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I see at least 3 distinct positions above:

1. We should state as fact he is indigenous without providing any third party reliable sources. Anybody who disagrees with doing this a right wing hater of indigenous people. All the true reliable sources support our position, but we are somehow unable or unwilling to provide any in the article.
2. We should state the subject's claim is dubious, cast doubt on the person's character and honesty, and rely entirely on sources that are bias, and more opinion than research based.
3. We shouldn't state anything, on way or another, about his personal ethnicity unless and until there is third party reliable sourcing to back it up in the article.

I support option #3, and am annoyed that people advocating #1, don't address #3, but only address #2. --Rob (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Option 4: We leave his ancestry precisely as it is in the article, until something contrary is provided from a source that's not known for its history of disparaging Aboriginal people. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I highly recommend that anyone wanting to present Andrew Bolt as an objective observer on Aboriginal matters have a look at Andrew Bolt#Controversies, court actions and findings. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want reliable sources as to whether Andrew Bolt & the Herald & Weekly Times have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

• Mr Bolt 's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist. at para 228 and
• The lack of care and diligence is demonstrated by the inclusion in the Newspaper Articles of the untruthful facts and the distortion of the truth which I have identified, together with the derisive tone, the provocative and inflammatory language and the inclusion of gratuitous asides. For those reasons I am positively satisfied that Mr Bolt’s conduct lacked objective good faith. at para 425

--Find bruce (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

There is the matter of the quotes from Michael Mansell & Jason Briggs emphatically denying that Pascoe has any connection to their respective tribes, counter to Pascoe's claims. They were asked for their opinions & gave them. You keep pretending that this didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.245 (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I got here out of interest from the invitation posted at WP:AWNB#RfC?. I've read this thread, the article, and some of the references. I had heard of the book (but not read it), and not thought about the author before this discussion. We seem to have plenty of references that say Pascoe has Aboriginal heritage from several areas, but most (if not all) of them are either written in his voice, or highly likely to have been ghost-written by him as speaker/author background/biography. On the other side, we have several newspaper articles which claim to cite research done into his background and assert that his heritage is entirely English. Some people here dismiss those articles as "right wing" in a tone that suggests they need not be read further as they would clearly be unreliable. All of these sources are valid for "Pascoe claims to be..", "Pascoe says that he is..." or other words to that effect that do not have Wikipedia asserting anything about his ancestry in its own voice. Neither "side" has unequivocal references that will be universally accepted by everyone. I propose that the lead paragraph need not describe him as Aboriginal or anything else. It's not key to his notability:

Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is an Australian writer who has has also written under the names Murray Gray and Leopold Glass. He has worked as a teacher, farmer, a fisherman and an Aboriginal language researcher.

The second paragraph describes his key work, not its author. I think the second sentence of Life and career can start "He says he..." without problem as the rest of the paragraph is about his attitudes to various aspects of his heritage (in the same was as Meghan, Duchess of Sussex says that she is not "black"). Towards the end of "life" and before "Career" in that section, it would be plausible to include a paragraph to describe what he claims of his ancestry, that it has been disputed, and where other people claim to have alternate branches (all with references, of course). Given the heat in some people's edit comments, that paragraph should probably be proposed and wordsmithed here before being added to the article. That's my five cents worth as a dispassionate Australian observer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty simple; the guy has made many varied claims about being aboriginal & then writing on aboriginal history from that perspective. Now one of the tenets of aboriginality is that you must be accepted by a tribe(s): Mansell & Briggs have been emphatic in denying he is part of their respective tribes, while Josephine Cashman is also emphatic that he has no connection to the Yuin either. All of this ancestry is claimed for Pascoe in the biog yet some editors are unwilling to allow this disputation to be added to the article to give it balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.25.245 (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I support the approach of ScottDavis (even though I prefer removing all reference to his ethnic identity without better sources for now, it seems we're stuck covering it, so let's do it better than we are). --Rob (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone using the word "tribe" when discussing Aboriginality pretty much instantly disqualifies themselves from the conversation. It's a word that's never used by Aboriginal people themselves, by people familiar with how Aboriginal people describe themselves, or by those who have any understanding at all about the groupings of Aboriginal people. As with any other group of people, there are widely different opinions on matters. We are being presented with those of Mansell, Briggs and Cashman as if they are the be all and end all of this matter. Nobody has demonstrated what particular qualifications these people have to rule on this matter. It could be that they just don't like him. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 please assume good faith and address the issue in a positive way. "Tribe" is a word that was used when some of us first learned about Aboriginal people. 202.161.25.245 did not necessarily mean to be disrespectful, just because he or she did not know the "right" word. DO you support removing any mention of ethnicity or race from the lead paragraph, and addressing what Pascoe has done instead, in the same way as the Noel Pearson article does not mention his heritage in the lead? --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Although it has puzzled me from the start of this discussion that those clearly on the side of disparaging Aboriginal people somehow seem to think that proving that Pascoe is NOT Aboriginal will somehow discredit his most well known book. It suggests to me that they have not actually read the book. As for not assuming good faith, suggesting that someone is insufficiently aware of the background of and the issues involved in this matter is very different from not assuming good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disparaging aboriginal people; and the use of the word 'tribe' is common parlance. You seem to do anything to avoid addressing the point that the tribes Pascoe has claimed to be a part of have rejected his claim. This is important information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"...the tribes Pascoe has claimed to be a part of have rejected his claim." I have not seen that. I have seen that three individual people have disagreed with him. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't care if he is or he isn't - Cornish, Palawa or anything else. We shouldn't say he is (or isn't) without a reliable reference. I will note that one of the external reading links on Indigenous peoples of Australia uses the word "tribe" without being disparaging. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't. The source is obviously an old one. That word was used by white people long ago. It is now archaic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Briggs, Mansell & Cashman have rejected his claims. That's been noted several times. You keep trying to dodge that fact. They are aboriginal, and leaders within their groups, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than dodging anything (and that allegation IS one of bad faith), I have already pointed out that it's up to those wanting to use quotes from those people that they need to prove that those three have any authority to speak on behalf of other Aboriginal people. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mansell needs to prove "authority to speak on behalf of other Aboriginal people" ??? LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• RS discussion FYI, I posted at the RS noticeboard to widen the discussion about the sourcing aspect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

So, are the Herald Sun, Sky News & Quadrant reliable sources, or nah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Not on matters like this. And what bothers me even more is that the fans of those journals are not even aware of the problem. For starters, just read the Andrew Bolt article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What you mean is that it's simply your opinion that these sources are unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.57 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. Far more than just my opinion. Wikipedia has a place where we discuss the reliability of sources. See the RS noticeboard. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Continued...

• Some background and context. Next, just to address the IP's comment that the matter is "simple". No, it's not. There are so many issues relating to this one that it's hard to know where to start. I did a bit of reading after searching on specific terms last night though, and these are a few links which may help to provide a bit of background reading. (I couldn't find anything useful about Cashman or Briggs, relating to their credibility, standing in the community, or right to act as spokespersons.)

Tasmanian Aboriginality, and Mansell's involvement in the issue. One article in a special edition of the Griffith Review about Tasmania which touches on some of the complexities. The Crisis in Tasmania - part of a 2003 government briefing "Defining Aboriginality in Australia". Tasmania embroiled in dispute over white tribe of Aborigines - The Telegraph (UK), 2005. Aboriginal elder Uncle Roy Maynard defends Jacqui Lambie - after Clyde Mansell challenged her claim to Aboriginal heritage. (In other articles, Lambie shows further proof). Michael Mansell has a go at Bolt for "inflaming prejudice against Aboriginal people (2014). Disputes over Aboriginal identity among reasons for Tasmanian legal service funding change (ABC, 2005). And of course there was Bolt's now infamous White is the new black (2009). I list just a handful of these (not necessarily the best or most pertinent, but I don't have days to spend on this) just to demonstrate some of the background and baggage relating to this "simple" matter. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

To continue with the discussion: Thank you, ScottDavis, for adding to it. We need more voices in here, especially experienced editors. I'm not sure that anyone should be making changes to the article on the ethnicity topic at this point yet, as the discussion is ongoing, but seeing that you have already removed that bit from the lead, I propose that we let it lie for now. If there is still ongoing debate, which is also reported in reliable third-party sources (i.e. not just those voices already mentioned who are directly challenging his ethnicity), in coming months or years, then it can be revisited. At the moment, apart from WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT, there is also the issue of WP:RECENTISM, not to mention WP:STORM IN A TEACUP. (Yes, I made that last one up, but I think we need one!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is simple. Mansell, Briggs & Cashman say he has no connection to their respective tribes. Articles about this have been published by Herald Sun & Quadrant, and interviews with all 3 conducted by Bolt on Sky. Regardless of your personal view (and I emphasize personal view), all 3 are reliable sources, are they not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you? If you do, please tell us why. And there is no such thing as a tribe in Aboriginal Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't know if they're reliable sources? Or are they sources that you don't like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It's a key pillar here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Point out where I've failed to assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

By writing "Or are they sources that you don't like?" And please learn how to indent your comments. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not assuming bad faith; that comment was predicated on your refusal to engage with the facts presented about Mansell, Briggs & Cashman rejecting Pascoe's claims that he's part of their respective tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I am going to disengage with you here for now, because you are failing to participate in discussion here at the level needed in Wikipedia. This is not social media. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have engaged on a single point, and not strayed from that point despite attempts to drag the discussion elsewhere. I've been unable to get a reasonable response as to why you consider that the Herald Sun & Quadrant are not reliable sources, or to acknowledge what Mansell et al have said about Pascoe's claimed aboriginality. These are pertinent facts that can be presented, in an encyclopedic form, and left for the reader's consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I will reply to you once more simply to highlight to other editors that I have posted a formal welcome to you on your Talk page, along with an explicit explanation of indenting. That you are ignoring everything I have done there to actually help you be a better editor should tell everyone a lot about your attitude and competence. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet again, you've dodged addressing what the discussion is actually about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

Somewhere in the section above, I proposed about 24 hours ago that the lead paragraph of the article be changed to talk about what Pascoe has said and done, without reference to his heritage, and to stick with the available references for his heritage in the next section. This morning, having received agreement from one editor, and been ignored by several others, I applied the proposed edit, and received thanks for it in my notifications. It was expanded by other editors later in the day. Tonight I find that my consensus edit has been undone by User:HiLo48 with the edit comment It's obvious there is no consensus on the Talk page to change the description of his ethnicity. That was a bad faith edit. I do not believe that I made a "bad faith" edit, and I would like to give HiLo48 the opportunity to self-revert. My change to the first paragraph removed the unnecessary text that had been causing angst on this talk page and other places. The minor change in language further down was to make it say only what all the sources agree on. I invited others to develop on the talk page a new paragraph about ethnicity if they think it necessary.

HiLo48 - if you think that ethnicity is a key part of Pascoe's notability that needs to be in the first paragraph of this article, please explain why. I have noted that another Aboriginal rights activist, Noel Pearson, is not described that way. The authors of that article think that his notability stems from his actions, not his ancestors. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If the article is to say "He says he is of ... heritage" then we really need to mention that other people dispute his heritage. Saying "he says ..." instead of "he is ...", while literally correct, suggests that we don't believe him (else we'd say "he is..."), in which case we need to justify that doubt by mention the contrary view. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be only dropping in here late at night at the moment. I can't keep the relative weights and neutrality of the various points of view and who holds them in my head to work out a suitably neutral description of who says what and whether any counter claims have equal validity. I believe that "he says" is reasonable in the context of the entire paragraph, until such time as it is completely rewritten, as almost every other sentence starts with "He says", "He acknowledges" etc. I'm quite happy for someone else to rewrite it completely with due weight and references. I'd still remove the ethnic description from the lead paragraph as it is incidental to his notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

At issue is his claims of Boonwurrung, Palawa and Yuin ancestry. Briggs, Mansell and Cashman (respectively) have said that they don't accept his claims. The logical thing to do is list his claims & state that they're subject to dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.218 (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The ONLY thing to do right now is to await consensus on the Talk page. And I repeat, it's obvious there is none. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that one doesn't change disputed content while discussion is still ongoing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Await consensus either means we need to keep discussing it (not just restating the same opinions), or "win" by wearing the other side down. The changes I made were the bits that I believe do have consensus - the reason he is notable is as an author and researcher, not because of his ancestry, and he acknowledges both colonial and Aboriginal heritage, and he feels Aboriginal. I am hoping that someone else (you two perhaps) will propose a better paragraph about ancestry and heritage. Look at the entire paragraph and article in deciding whether the edits are appropriate, not just the five words either side of the diff. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There is another option, which is to raise an RfC. But the choices would need to be clearly laid out and numbered, so people know what they're supporting or opposing. The current discussion has turned into rather a rambling mess. (And we've got your point, IP; there's no need to repeat yourself.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"...there's no need to repeat yourself" An RfC will just lead to everyone doing more of that, whilst again ignoring what others have said. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

If you got my point,old mate, then address it. I've proposed nothing other than facts that are in the public domain that, if included in the article in an impartial way, will be an invitation to the reader to form their own view of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reinforcing my point IP editor, and also showing a refusal to learn how to discuss things properly on a Wikipedia Talk page. No indenting. No signature. No registration (especially important since your IP address keeps changing). Bad faith comments. I think WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED allows us to ignore any further comments from you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems you'd do anything rather than simply address the point. Accusing me of bad faith is pretty funny, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Conversations can become very complex here. Following a set of long established conventions can make things much easier for all editors. I am 99.99999% certain you are the same person who was posting from the very similar IP address of 202.161.1.218 up above. Probably with an iiNet internet connection from somewhere in the area of Sunbury, Victoria. I earlier gave you a formal welcome on your Talk page, with several bits of advice about becoming a better editor, then a second piece of guidance on indenting your posts in these conversations. For reasons unknown to me, you have not followed that advice. My advice included registering. If you register yourself as a user on Wikipedia, the ability of other editors to easily see the identifying information I showed above actually disappears. Surprising as it may seem, registering gives you greater anonymity than not registering. Editing the way you have been is quite aggravating, and makes conversations more difficult to follow. I was polite in providing that information. Please put some effort into becoming a better editor here, and your credibility may increase in my eyes (and perhaps the eyes of others here.). HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything, just made comments about a salient point that should be in the article. Nothing complex about it. Conversations usually proceed by one person making a point (which I have) and the other person(s) responding to that point. You've avoided responding to my point; the lengths that you've gone to to avoid responding are quite comical. Anything more complicated than that is a product of your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you're not a contributor to Wikipedia, you're just here to complain then, IP? Perhaps you missed it, but amongst those acres of words up there are the answers to your questions. No, Bolt is not a reliable source, and Newscorp is not a disinterested party in this case (and rarely in others). Three Aborginal people summoned by Bolt on Sky News to say that they haven't heard of Pascoe's branch of the family is not proof of anything beyond the fact that they hadn't come across the information, so IMO cannot be regarded as RS. Do any of us know what his bloodline is? No. But WP uses a standard for reliable sources, and follows a number of rules, indicated several times above, which are stringently applied to BLPs in particular (which so far you have shown no sign of having read). So, as far as I can see, our options here are:

1. Mention his self-reported ancestry in the lead as well as in the body.
2. Leave out the ancestry in the lead but mention it in the body.
3. Don't mention ancestry at all.

And/or

1. Don't mention the (as yet unsubstantiated) allegations, coming from two avowedly right-wing sources, at all. Wait and watch for future press or other coverage.
2. Mention the allegations, making clear the names of the accusers, in a brief note with the best possible sources, in the body of the text following mention of his self-reported ancestry.

Any other suggestions? Else I think it's time to post an RfC and invite a few more experienced editors with a good knowledge of WP editing practices, to support or oppose each point (and we need to allow at least a week for this before further editing or repetitive squabbling). It doesn't actually matter what our personal political or social proclivities are; it matters that we agree on wording which respects WP's rules and guidelines, and maintain distance from and respect for the person who is being written about. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia not the encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute? Calling Mansell et al. "avowedly right-wing" is a disingenuous misrepresentation of what has been said. Mansell & Bolt are certainly not of the same political ilk & have clashed often in the past, which makes Mansell's comments re Pascoe all the more pertinent. What matters are facts, not whether someone indents a comment or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You may have noticed that there has been more than just you and me commenting on this page, on many different aspects of this issue. And you STILL won't indent. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Another non-response to the point I initially raised. How much further will you go to avoid having that conversation? LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you deliberately misread, are you being disingenuous, or are you just in too much of a hurry to snap out another response, IP? The two avowedly right-wing sources are obviously Bolt/Herald Sun and Quadrant. Please try to read and digest, or ask if you don't understand. And please make some attempt to make the discussion more readable and show some good faith by indenting properly and signing your comments. It's not that hard. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, chap. Take your own advice and don't be condescending. Now, you said "(as yet unsubstantiated) allegations, coming from two avowedly right-wing sources" which is not relevant when they're reporting the important comments of Mansell et al. They aren't unsubstantiated or are they allegations. They are rejections of Pascoe's aboriginality by the leaders of tribes he claims affinity to. The conversation will advance if you acknowledge that these comments were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.14.123 (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Aboriginal people don't have tribes, and they don't really have leaders. They have elders, and some people who are apparently elected to positions, such as Mansell. But I'm still trying to work out how being chairman of a land council gives someone the right to comment on someone else's Aboriginality with any authority at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Aboriginal people ... don't really have leaders" — Quite a few Wikipedia articles need updating if that is the case. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(I have lost track of indentation - I am responding to [[Laterthanyouthink]]'s list of options) - I think we have consensus not to mention Pascoe's heritage in the lead (i.e. against option 1) - it's incidental to what makes him notable (his writings). I don't think we have strong consensus about whether it should be in the body, but a leaning that something about it should be there for this to be a complete (C-class or better) article. As far as whether his claims are valid or contested, I suspect that the issue has been in mainstream media enough that it should be noted. My independent checks suggest that the three named individuals should be expected to speak with the authority of their respective indigenous groups - two appear to be chairperson of their relevant land councils, so have an interest in defining its membership. Unfortunately, the only online references I have found to their repudiation of Pascoe is either from Bolt, or repeating what Bolt said. If the video linked somewhere above includes the saying it in their own voices, it can be cited using {{Cite AV media}} (I haven't been in a place to watch it yet). For me, the inclusion and dispute over his ancestry is not about credibility of the book(s). The research should stand alone, regardless of who did it. It's about completeness in answering "Who is Bruce Pascoe?". --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that his ancestry is incidental to what makes him notable (his writings). It's why I've been so puzzled by the level of desperation in the efforts of some here to prove that he's not Aboriginal. "I suspect that the issue has been in mainstream media enough..." I have seen no such discussion. But you see, I never read the Murdoch media. And as you said, Bolt and the Herald Sun are the worst of all possible sources on these matters. (Except maybe for Quadrant. I recommend to anyone not aware of its leanings that they look at our article on it, and that of its editor, Keith Windschuttle.) You say of the three named individuals, "two appear to be chairperson of their relevant land councils". Can we do better than "appear to be"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ScottDavis, the YouTube video is of Bolt on Sky News. Starting with a general rant against Dark Emu, he goes on to quote Mansell (leader of one of at least two Tasmanian Aboriginal groups, subject to criticism by another group in the past, and not supported by Ken Wyatt on this, incidentally), reporting that Mansell says that Pascoe doesn't have Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry, or at least he cannot trace his line. Then he says that Jason Briggs, a lawyer and chairman of one of at least two Bunurong groups (representating the Briggs dynasty, descended from Louisa Briggs only), says that Pascoe is not Bunurong to his knowledge. I don't think that Bolt mentions Cashman in the clip, but from my other reading, I understand that she tweeted that an ex-partner of hers (unnamed), of Yuin heritage, said that Pascoe wasn't Yuin. She was not supported by her friend Marcia Langton in this.

I don't think that a blog by Bolt in a Melbourne tabloid, Bolt on a subscription TV channel and an (albeit with higher standards of writing) magazine which is now little more than a platform for pushing opinions, edited by Windschuttle, really qualify as substantial reporting in mainstream media, surely? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So why doesn't it qualify? The Hun is the best selling newspaper in Australia, and Quadrant is a respected journal that has had many famous contributors and editors over many decades. If they aren't reliable sources, what are?

Michael Mansell

chairperson of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania

Jason Briggs

Bolt describes Briggs as Chairman of the Boonwurrung Land & Sea Council. I have been unable to confirm or refute this but he is definitely a spokesperson for it

Josephine Cashman

Only claims that her son (and presumably therefore his father) is Yuin, which makes it harder to check. SBS said in 2015 that she belonged to the Yuin nation

--Scott Davis ^Talk 23:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Earlier on this page there was mention of something that you must have missed. You really must read it now. It's the RS noticeboard. It's where we go to on Wikipedia to discuss whether a source is reliable. That discussion shows the problems many people independent of this discussion see with the Herald Sun and Bolt. As for Quadrant, I simply ask that you read our article on it, and the one on its editor, Keith Windschuttle. It is not a source known for its objectivity when it comes to Aboriginal matters. So this is not just about my opinion on those journals. They are both widely seen as not good sources on these matters. To use them in this article would be doing our readers a disservice.

I actually laughed when, after having talked with you about Andrew Bolt, I opened your source on Michael Mansell. It shows a photo of a man Bolt would aggressively describe as non-Aboriginal because he looks white. (He has been sued for doing so.) I do happen to have a Tasmanian friend with similar skin colour AND blue eyes, who has convinced me he has Aboriginal ancestry, so I'm not going to argue about that for Mansell (even though Bolt would). So yes, Mansell appears to have some right to speak on the matter, but I'd still have my doubts about his motivations. He may just not like the bloke. Does being chairman of a land council actually entitle one to speak with authority on the Aboriginality of other people? The other two people are looking weaker and weaker as serious spokespeople. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Mansell said what he said. Your opinion on his motivation for doing so isn't relevant to that fact. Also, you keep saying Quadrant & The Hun aren't creditable sources without any proof for this claim.

Who wrote that? Not proof of anything, but you really must read the RS noticeboard. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolt is an unreliable source and Quadrant has been depreciated as an unreliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Being widely read is irrelevant, being a reliable source is what counts. Bolt has been convicted and successfully sued for similar comments in the past, he has a reputation for publishing falsehoods and is a stridently biased commentator - his reputation is nothing short of appalling. The Herald sun is a reliable source for reportage, but it's commentry is infamous for publishing hyperbole and highly partisan falsehoods - so comments by folks like Terry McCrann and bolt are rightfully treated as bias and hyperbolic opinion. Windschuttle is a disreputable figure, the broader academic community shuns him, he is not a reliable source due to having been exposed for publishing falsehoods in the past.Bacondrum (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There is an extensive investigation into Pascoe's ancestry here: https://australianhistory972829073.wordpress.com/2019/10/23/bruce-pascoe-how-aboriginal-is-he/ It has numerous BDM certificates & newspaper extracts; Pascoe has been asked to identify which ancestor is aboriginal but he's declined to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.57 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the first two sentences. They are ridiculously wrong. Why does the ancestry of the person who wrote Dark Emu matter at all for the credibility of the book? (Have you actually read it?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You're the one linking the debate about his heritage to the credibility of the book, not me. The blog has extensive documentation that is not "ridiculously" wrong. A BDM certificate cannot be wrong. It's an unbiased source document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.194.57 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"You're the one linking the debate about his heritage to the credibility of the book, not me." The fucking article YOU told us to read did the fucking linking! Not me. I commented on the fact that they linked the two. I'm becoming more and more frustrated with discussing this with you. Your comments simply aren't rational. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Now, there's no need for swearing, assume good faith. Remember WP:CIVIL

You said this 4 days ago. "Yes, the goal seems to be to discredit the book by proving that Pascoe isn't Aboriginal. I'm not sure how that works. The book stands on its own. It doesn't matter who wrote it. The message it is presenting is still there no matter what the ancestry of the author is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)" You've been linking the issue at hand with the credibility of the book, I've said no such thing. The link to the research into Pascoe's genealogy was about just that: about his genealogy & why people like Mansell etc. do not recognize him as aboriginal. It's not an endorsement of their argument about the book. The credibility of the book is a separate matter.182.239.194.57 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Pascoe has responded before, which segues nicely into a point I don't think has been made yet. One of many problems with this issue is that once you open the can of worms, it can drag on and on and on, blowing a tiny issue into one of apparently massive proportions. Hence my mention of WP:CRIT and WP:BLP many times, and another reminder that this is a Wikipedia article about a writer and historian; we don't need another History Wars here. There is already quite a lot that could be quoted, by Pascoe in his own words and others on the issue. Anyway, I'm about to post an RfC. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It was Pascoe's choice to insert himself into the heart of the history wars. There is no bias in adding the comments of people like Mansell to the article & allowing readers to make up their own mind. The discussion isn't advancing because you keep resisting acknowledging what Mansell et al. have said. 182.239.194.57 (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And you keep failing to acknowledge anything anyone else says, or read the links they provide. You are new here. You have a lot to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I've learned that your standard approach is to not respond to the point I've made and instead offer up some ad hominem argument like "You have a lot to learn." 182.239.194.57 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence

So far we've rightly been talking about sourcing, but let's pretend we had 100 perfectly reliable sources to prove absolutely he is indigenous and non contesting it. We still shouldn't mention it in the lead sentence as we did here (before recent changes). The fact Barack Obama is African American is indisputable and hugely notable, yet we just call him an "American" without qualification in the lead sentence of his bio. Same with Martin Luther King Jr.. If an Australian author were of entirely British ancestry, but exclusive Australian citizenship, we would never introduce them as "British Australian" or "European Australian" or "White Australian". --Rob (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you Rob or Thivierr? It's getting bloody difficult to follow conversations here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User name is Thivierr, displayed as "Rob". In hindsight, I wouldn't have set it like that, but oh well. --Rob (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC

This discussion, as you can see from above, does not appear to be going anywhere, and I think we need some more voices in here. Copied from above (as yet no other options offered, but please add if you have one). As far as I can see, our options here are:

1. Mention his self-reported ancestry in the lead as well as in the body.
2. Leave out the ancestry in the lead but mention it in the body.
3. Don't mention ancestry at all.

And/or

1. Don't mention the (as yet unsubstantiated) allegations, coming from two avowedly right-wing sources, at all. Wait and watch for future press or other coverage.
2. Mention the allegations, making clear the names of the accusers, in a brief note with the best possible sources, in the body of the text following mention of his self-reported ancestry.

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Michael Mansell is not right-wing & he isn't making an allegation, he's saying that his people do not recognize Pascoe's claim to being a Palawa. You've misrepresented the situation & left out the proposal to mention that (1) Pascoe claims he is, variously, Yuin, Bunwurrung or Palawa and, (2) representatives of all three tribes have said that he is not. Thus, allowing the reader to make up their own mind on the matter.182.239.194.57 (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no evidence that those people (apart, perhaps, from Mansell) represent anyone. You really need to read the WHOLE discussion more carefully, and learn how to sign your posts!!!!!! And then learn how an RfC works. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

IP, you had plenty of time to add alternative options succinctly above, and I don't understand exactly what you are proposing; I believe I have covered those options in my proposals. I have explained before that I am referring to the sources, not Mansell. And please, everyone, read WP:RFC, keep comments brief and to the point in this section, and await comments from others. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear what I'm proposing; Mansell et al have made statements, not allegations, they aren't accusers. You've yet to demonstrate, factually, why these sources are unacceptable. They have reported what is true. Why are you working to keep these statements out of the article?182.239.194.57 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• In line with other comparable biographies, he is not notable for his ancestry, so it should not be in the lead. To achieve C-class or better, it needs to be discussed in the body of the article. On the currently available sources, it appears that a proper discussion of his ancestry is going to include both his own claims of Palawa, Bunurong, Yuin and Cornish and the contrasting claims by others that his ancestry is wholly English. That could change if irrefutable evidence appears for his claims. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the approach I've been suggesting throughout. Put both sides in the article, from a NPOV, and allow the reader to decide. 182.239.194.57 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

There is still massive doubt about the credibility of those disputing Pascoe's claim. Just because some random person says something doesn't mean a thing. We need to establish the authority of that person. I think we have pretty much dismissed the Herald Sun, Bolt and Quadrant as sensible sources to use here. Many objective readers who tend to avoid right wing outlets for their news would see those sources being used and immediately say "Nah, the opposite is probably true." Nobody has shown Jason Briggs nor Josephine Cashman to have any particular status to speak with authority on this matter. That leaves us with Mansell, the one we know more about. He is chairman of a land council. What does that have to do with someone else's ancestry? I would like to see that clearly explained. Wikipedia is global. Imagine a non-Australian in another country trying to work out the connection. Editors also need to be aware that interpersonal politics within Aboriginal communities can involve as much if not more bickering, fibbing and misrepresentation as in any other society. Truth is not n absolute commodity there. Oh and BTW, when people say they are Cornish, they often are distinctly saying they ARE NOT English. Just read the first paragraph of Cornish people. But that's another can of worms. It just highlights that this stuff is neither simple nor trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bunurong Aboriginal Australian Bruce Pascoe is a Bunurong man. That's how he should be described. Anything else is blatant racism. Type his name in to google search, every single article that comes up describes him as such. The culture war folks like Bolt et al express fringe views, bolt has received a conviction under the racial discrimination act for similar claims in the past. This whole debate is racist, derogatory and defamatory. Any comments above denying Pascoe's Aboriginality must be removed immediately. Bacondrum (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear Bacondrum, do you refute the claims of Palawa, Yuin, Cornish and English? Or do you mean he may have those heritage but is Bunurong now? SMH described him as "... of Bunurong and Yuin descent" (and did not mention Palawa).[1] --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't refute anything, numerous reliable sources support Pascoe's claims. Op eds by highly partisan culture warriors are not reliable sources ie: bolt, Quadrant etc. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Bolt et al have form in this regard (Bolt having been convicted under section 18c of the racial discrimination act for racist attacks on fair skinned Aboriginal people). All the recent claims are racist and based on a lunatic fringe blog: https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/11721283804/first-australians-they-have-come-to-stay

We don't report opinion, we report what reliable sources say: All of these articles describe him as either Bunurong, Indigenous, Aboriginal or some variant of:

• The Australian: [2]
• Inside Story: [3]
• The Sydney Morning Herald: [4]
• University of Queensland: [5]
• SBS (a highly regarded, award winning documentary): [6]
• The Guardian: [7]
• Schwartz group: [8]
• Meanjin: [9]
• National Library of Australia [10]
• Wheeler Centre: [11]
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/bruce-pascoe-on-the-wallagaraugh-river/10719370
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation: http://education.abc.net.au/newsandarticles/blog/-/b/3165887/bruce-pascoe-teaches-australians-about-the-rich-indigenous-history-of-their-country?sf212854597=1

That's just a quick google search. The "culture warriors" at Quadrant and the Herald sun have form and are likely to end up back in court on this one. We should stick to reliable sources and neutral sources - the culture warriors are neither. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless of what the sources are, and what we do elsewhere, why is it necessary to say in the lead sentence he is an "Aboriginal Australian". As I said above, we don't do the equivalent with Barack Obama or Martin Luther King Jr., but just call them "American" because they are (no different than other American presidents and civil rights leaders). We may mention they're African Americans right after, but do so in a relevant way (e.g. say Obama is first African American president). In general we don't use the term "British Australian" or "White Australian" or "European Australian" for people that are citizens of Australia alone. In general we don't pigeon hole people in the way you seem to be doing here. Are people only able to write about their own ethnicity? Do you think that is all Pascoe writes about? Why is it so important to you to define him this way right at the start? Perhaps if we don't make his ethnicity the first thing we say, people might learn a bit more about the person first. Try reading what he says about himself. Notice that while he clearly identifies (and is identified) as indigenous, he doesn't give a simplistic answer of what he is, as you wish to. --Rob (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

My reason for thinking the "controversy" over his ancestry should be in this article somewhere (but not the lead) is that Bitter Harvest is mentioned in Dark Emu (book), and Pascoe's ancestry is questioned in one of the references there. It doesn't actually matter if Bolt/Quadrant are "reliable" as references to his ancestry (I agree they are not), but Bolt/Herald Sun are widely-read, so a complete article about Pascoe has to address issues that might have been the reason someone is reading the article. I don't think the credibility of Dark Emu hangs on its author's heritage, and arguably it would be even more powerful if he did not claim to be Aboriginal. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Pascoe's best known work is a book about Aboriginal people. That makes it a little more relevant to describe his ancestry than in the cases of Obama and MLK Jr. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mansell & Briggs are leaders of their respective groups. They reject Pascoe's claims that he is a member of their tribes. That's a fact, not an allegation. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh FFS, yet another non-indented comment by a random IP editor. PLEASE learn how to edit, and please register a name. It gives you greater anonymity, and helps us all follow conversations more easily. (Were you attempting to explicitly reply to someone else there, or is this just another repetitive point being hurled into the mix?) You need to do better than "Mansell & Briggs are leaders of their respective groups." What are those groups? How did they become "leaders"? What do you actually mean by "leaders"? How do their respective positions give them the right to comment on someone else's Aboriginality with any authority at all? (If they actually do.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mansell is chairman of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Council, ditto Briggs for the Boonwurrung. But then you already know that. The judge in the Mabo case said of aboriginality "Membership of the Indigenous people depends on biological descent from the Indigenous people and on mutual recognition of a particular person's membership by that person and by the elders or other persons enjoying traditional authority among those people." If Mansell & Briggs don't recognize his membership, he isn't part of their group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.215.233 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"...ditto Briggs for the Boonwurrung. But then you already know that." No, Sorry. Didn't know that. If that "fact" has been presented above, I must have missed it, possibly due to the mess this conversation is in, and that's mostly because of incompetent IP editors who won't (can't?) learn how to write correctly on Talk pages. Nevertheless, I ask again - How do their respective positions give them the right to comment on someone else's Aboriginality with any authority at all? HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If they say he isn't a part of their tribe, he isn't. That's simple to understand, it's been explained ad nauseam, you understand it but keep begging the question. It's a notable fact about Pascoe that should be included in his biog, yet you're working hard to keep it out.182.239.215.233 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"If they say he isn't a part of their tribe, he isn't." Prove it. I fail to see how chairing a land council gives someone that authority. And I suspect a lot of our readers would feel the same way. How are the two things even connected? (BTW, you still got the indenting wrong.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you really trying to say Mansell doesn't speak on behalf of his people? LOL. Desperate. And what you think readers would feel about something sums up your censorious approach to this issue. Allow people to think for themselves. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You're not answering the questions. How does chairing a land council give someone authority to speak on someone else's Aboriginality? And you have NFI idea about indenting. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous response. You know of Mansell's stature among Tasmanian aborigines. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What I know means nothing in Wikipedia. Even if meant anything about his right to classify people according to race, our readers won't know. You need to be able to explain it. How does chairing a land council give someone authority to speak on someone else's Aboriginality? HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What a ridiculous response. Are you questioning Mansell's authority in this matter? Tell you what, why don't you ask your buddy Laterthanyouthink about Mansell, he's been editing Mansell's article recently. He can fill you in.182.239.215.233 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that THIS article needs to explain why chairing a land council give someone authority to speak on someone else's Aboriginality. This is a global encyclopaedia. Dark Emu is getting global attention. Hence, so is Pascoe. We cannot write as if all our readers know what you think you know. Wikipedia doesn't work like that And if you get the indenting wrong yet again....... Hey, I have a suggestion. You're new here. You have to admit that means you don't know how everything works. How about you stop repeating yourself here, to no purpose, and go away for a while to edit some other articles in areas that interest you? That way you will learn a lot more about how things work here. Watch and learn for a while, rather than telling. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't own wikipedia, bud. How about you knock off telling people what to do? Mansell has a suite of positions within the Tasmanian aboriginal community, including the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, which is the strongest voice in determining if someone is aboriginal or not.

It's time for you to admit that you're deliberately trying to exclude this information from the article on Pascoe. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrongly indented. Again! And abusive. Go away until you learn how things work here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing abusive about anything that I've said. Who do you think you are that you tell someone to "go away." This is a tacit admission that your purpose in this debate is to exclude pertinent information about Pascoe. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

From recollection, the guidelines state ethnicity should not be mentioned in the lead, unless its integral to the subjects life and/or work. Its a bit hard to argue no, when we have a quote from the subject in the article stating that of his aboriginality "It’s the pulse of my life". But then if Noel Pearson does not have it mentioned in his article lead, I could live with no mention here, although I do not have any objections to something saying "he states he is of indigenous descent".

The second question is more awkward. We are stating that he self identifies as aboriginal, and it is perfectly clear that he does, and noone here is debating that. It should be mentioned somewhere, even if it is not in the lead.

As far as the allegations go, I realise that readers may expect there to be something here about them, however, the sources mentioned here are not really up to par for a BLP. Andrew Bolt has been found guilty in a court of law for being careless about facts, etc, and the Herald Sun article is clearly an opinion/blog. The Sky News clip is essentially the same thing, an opinion piece blog- Bolt reads out one sentence from each email he states he received. We do not see any of the rest of the correspondence, so no context at all. Its not an interview.

The Quadrant piece is not much better- they state that they are publishing a book by a "former contributor" that thinks Pascoe is guilty of "egregious deception", so they are hardly neutral on the subject and would appear to have a conflict of interest. The rest of that article is based on a website called "Dark Emu Exposed" run by a "Melbourne history enthusiast" which does not sound like reliable sourcing.

Wikipedia needs much better sources than this for a BLP, if we are going to be reporting allegations of any kind.

Are there any direct statements from reliable sources (not Twitter, not Andrew Bolt or Quadrant) about comments from Mansell and Briggs et al etc? Possibly it could be brought up using The Saturday Paper article, that places it as yet another round of the Culture/History Wars, but it would have to be done very carefully. Curdle (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are Herald Sun & Quadrant not acceptable sources? 182.239.215.233 (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read my comment? I said exactly why :) you should read WP:BLP too. Curdle (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Quadrant has published Peter O'Brien's Bitter Harvest which is a rebuttal of Dark Emu. That's the point: academic debate is a discourse of differing points of view. That Quadrant has chosen a side in the History wars doesn't mean that they should not be a reliable source. To say that they are not a reliable source is a biased approach and to not include their point of view is censorship of their side of the debate. 182.239.215.233 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Quadrant is a depreciated source. They have a history of publishing falsehoods and hyperbolic bias.

• Leave out the ancestry in the lead but mention it in the body. Also, dont mention allegations until better sourcing comes to light. As a side note, i dont think your RFC summary is neutrally written. The "avowedly right-wing sources" line strikes me as prejudicial and irrelevant, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Why are Herald Sun & Quadrant not acceptable sources?" That question has been answered many times on this page, as has this link - the RS noticeboard. Please follow it and read what's there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Avowedly right-wing or left-wing sources generally are inappropriate for culture wars articles. We look to more neutral sources. Quadrant is depreciated due to its history of publishing hyperbole and out right falsehoods. The Herald sun is fine for news reportage, but there commentary is famous for it's bias and hyperbole. Comments from McCrann and Bolt et al are not reliable sources by any measure. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

By that metric, left-wing news ouylets such as ABC or the Gaurdian are unacceptable as well. Why is it that the article on Dark Emu uses Quadrant & news.com.au as reliable sources? 202.161.9.136 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, new participants Bacondrum, Curdle and Bonewah, in what has increasingly developed into a bunfight. As this section is getting difficult to read again, I am going to suggest that those who are ready to support any of the options above, to please state it in the section below, using numbers. (If it's kept "clean" of long comments, probably doesn't need bolding?) You don't have to justify your vote, but perhaps just a short qualifier which is relevant to what might be written in the article (e.g. Aboriginal or any combination of Bunurong/Yuin/Tasmanian Aboriginal/Palawa). Or if you have other suggestions or ideas that are an improvement on mine, please comment here and not below the line at this point. And, given what it's taken to get to this point, what about leaving the actual wordsmithing for a separate Talk topic, after this RfC is closed? And... sorry for the late addition, but another option I've just thought of is put something about the Bolt/Quadrant allegations in a footnote? I don't know if it's too late to add it as a separate option, but this could be a variation on option 2.2. I am just going to go ahead with mine at this point. I'm sure we all have better things to do than to argue the point ad nauseum. IMO the RfC should still be left open for another few days (for new participants, not just more of the same) - but as always, other opinions on this are welcome too.

Bonewah - just a note about the use of "avowedly" - all it means is openly acknowledged; it's not pejorative. I would say that the Guardian is avowedly left-wing (albeit with quality, fact-checked journalism), not the ABC (the subject of more than one enquiry proving that it is neutral, trusted and checks its facts). Quadrant and Herald Sun would not argue that they are anything but right-wing. If you agree with my suggestion, would you mind posting your vote and suggestion below again? I don't want to manipulate any content in the discussion by cutting and pasting other people's comments.

To the person posting from multiple IPs - it seems that you are not reading what other people are posting, nor the WP links that have been suggested to you. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and be aware that if you keep repeating the same behaviours, you may be subject to sanction. As someone who has never edited an article on Wikipedia, at this point your credibility is low, and you are weakening your case by continually repeating the same things after your questions have already been answered. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you threatening to censor me? For having a different opinion, or pointing out a double standard as to what a reliable source is? I note that you didn't answer the question as to why Quadrant & news.com.au are acceptable sources for the Dark Emu article, an article that you have edited yourself. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

put something about the Bolt/Quadrant allegations in a footnote — I was thinking the same. It's worth mentioning the disagreements about Pascoe's ancestry, but not worth including in the body text. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not Wikipedia. I am showing you the standards of expected behaviour here. Admins make those decisions. Dark Emu is a book - therefore not subject to the same stringent rules as WP:BLP with regard to criticism, and you will notice that the content and the way it's cited are completely different to what you are proposing here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

202.161.9.136 - Re Quadrant: It's been explained numerous times now, you are flogging a dead horse and refusing to listen to other editors. The source is depreciated, end of story. Bacondrum (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have here is a bunch of left-wing people saying that "right-wing sources are biased but we are not." Calling Quadrant (& Quillette, wtf?) biased but Playboy reliable, for instance, is bizarre. Quadrant publishes a lot of essays (which, by their nature, contain opinions/editorialising) & to say they have no interest in facts is a nonsense. This is a form of censorship based on political sides & what is an acceptable political viewpoint to take. A truly unbiased approach to take is to mention Pascoe's claims re his tribal affinity, then mention these claims are not accepted by the respective groups. That's a factual approach & there is nothing defamatory about it. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually read this discussion on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard yet? It's an independent area of Wikipedia, at a global level, not just Australia, where discussion is had on what is and what isn't a reliable source. It's been mentioned several times already on this page. If you've read it, you need to heed what others who are not part of this discussion are saying. If you haven't read it, please do! HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it. It's a discussion started by Laterthanyouthink, backed up by you, after this discussion began & no doubt started to shore up your case as the HeraldSun isn't mentioned on the Reliable Sources page. Seems to be a fair bit of Murdoch paranoia in that discussion. As for the discussion on Quadrant, it concludes that its "generally unreliable for factual reporting" yet has been quoted in the Dark Emu article, and no doubt other places. The same list says the Guardian is acceptable even though this is a self-described far left journal. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the discussion there if you feel it's heading in the wrong direction. Just be aware that it is watched by registered editors and Admins from all over Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Another weird, veiled threat. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If you think so. But I'm not stopping you going there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• 1./2. I don't see any reason not to mention his ancestry (indigenous and non-indigenous) in the usual Wikipedia way - one sentence in the "Early life" section or equivalent. I don't think "Indigenous Australian" should be used in the first sentence of the article as it's not core to his notability and usually nationality is used. It could be mentioned further on in the lede however. I think any controversy about his Aboriginality would need to permeate outside the blogosphere into mainstream publications before we cover it here. See Jacqui Lambie#Aboriginal ancestry for an example of how this sort of thing has been covered on Wikipedia in the past.

Who wrote that? There's a big difference between Lambie and Pascoe. Pascoe is best known for a book he has written on Aboriginal history. Lambie isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a relevant analogy; when Lambie made her maiden speech it was as a member of PUP which was perceived to be a right-wing party & therefore she was "open game" to have her claim questioned by Clyde Mansell (Michael's cousin) & have the dispute widely reported by media. Lambie's article mentions the disputation of her claimed aboriginality therefore it's consistent to do the same with Pascoe's article. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Voting below the line

Issue 1: Lead vs body

• 2. Leave out the ancestry in the lead but mention it in the body (Sorry, forgot to sign this before - and will add that I'm pretty agnostic on this one - both arguments have valid points.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Mitch's argument below has swayed me to the other side of this fence. So my vote is now officially changed to Leave in lead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Leave in lead for consistency as per standing convention:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Foley
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Clark_(politician)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galarrwuy_Yunupingu
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulumbu_Yunupingu
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Gurrumul_Yunupingu
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandawuy_Yunupingu
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Namatjira
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennelong
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemulwuy
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagan
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windradyne
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Mailman
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gulpilil
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Dingo
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Grant_(Wiradjuri_elder)
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Unaipon
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Nicholls
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aden_Ridgeway
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wyatt
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Peris
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Burney
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Aileen_Little
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Mabo
24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Dodson
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oodgeroo_Noonuccal

Bacondrum (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Leave in lede as per Bacondrum. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Leave in lede hell, we even mention Oscar Wilde is Irish, Halldór Laxness is Icelandic, and Jane Austin is English in the lede. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Body only his ancestry is not what makes him notable; he is notable as a historian, and Dark Emu could be even more significant if he claimed to be descended from colonists. I don't feel like trying to find 25 examples of Aboriginal Australians who are notable for something other than being Aboriginal Australians. They are much harder to find than people who are notable simply because of their ancestors. Here's a few:

• Noel Pearson
• Stan Grant (journalist)
• Karla Grant
• Andrew McLeod
• Christine Anu
• Ray Martin (television presenter)
• Cathy Freeman (mentions "first Australian Indigenous person" in second paragraph, but not the first one of lead)
• Adam Goodes (mentioned later in first paragraph, as most games by...)

Hopefully that is enough to show that it is not universal to always identify people as Aboriginal or indigenous in the first paragraph if tat is not what makes them notable.

• Brief mention in lede, details in body. E.g:

Lede: "Bruce Pascoe is an Australian writer with Aboriginal heritage."

Body: details, including Palawa, Bunurong/Kulin, Yuin, Cornish, similar to [12].

According to the infobox, Pascoe has received two notable awards - NSW Premier's Indigenous Writers' Prize, Dreamtime Person of the Year - which are specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander achievements, so his Aboriginality is relevant enough to mention in the lede. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Issue 2: Mention of challenge to Pascoe's claims re ancestry

• 1. Don't mention at all (yet - watch and wait) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Don't mention at all it's a clear BLP violation, the claims are unproven and as such are potentially libelous and defamatory, based on a claim by partisan culture war figures, published in unreliable sources that may very well result in convictions under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Bacondrum (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Don't mention it at all. The source quality of these allegations are appalling and it's something that as Bacondrum says is quite possibly legally defamatory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention it - leave in his Aboriginal ancestry claims of Tasmanian, Bunurong and Yuin but mention that this is disputed by some Official Government recognised groups , eg: Tasmanian (Michael Mansell's group) and Bunurong, both via Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt. Austhistory99 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Don't mention it at all. We've been inundated and hammered with unsourced and badly sourced claims to the contrary. The sources are such poor ones I tend to believe the opposite of what they say. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Wait for more coverage. This article by an ANU history professor does cover the dispute about Pascoe's Aboriginality. But coverage by news organisations would probably be better. I wouldn't have a problem with noting in the article what Pascoe himself has said about the process of how he came to identify as Aboriginal. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention it in a footnote, briefly and neutrally. We can "promote" it to body text if/when it gets wide-spread coverage. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention it the most notable personality in Tasmania's aboriginal community, Michael Mansell, has vehemently stated that Pascoe isn't Palawa. The law requires reciprocity of a claim, ie. anyone claiming tribal affiliation must have that claim accepted by the people of that particular group. This precept is well understood & was mentioned, for example, by the judge in the Mabo case back in 1992. 202.161.9.136 (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Don't mention it at all at least for the time being - do we have a source on this that isn't the Herald Sun/Bolt? Searching for "Bruce Pascoe" on Google News right now brings up Herald Sun, Herald Sun, Herald Sun, Herald Sun... searching for "Michael Mansell" "Bruce Pascoe" brings up only the Herald Sun, Quadrant, and a couple reprints of Bolt's column, the one I clicked on was from Gympie. I have a very difficult time thinking Bolt would be any sort of a reliable source based on what I know of him. SportingFlyer T·C 11:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• No mention of the controversy at all in the body unless there is better sourcing, as per WP:BLP. Curdle (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Mention, and revote, due to the strong new reliable sources As of today, these strong numerous fact-based challenges to his ethnic claims are now printed in The Australian by a senior reporter in that newspaper. The Australian is the main national newspaper, equivalent in Australia to the NYT. [[13]] Phil153 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't let that stand without comment. The Australian is just another right wing, Murdoch/NewsCorp publication, just like the Herald Sun. (Did you realise that?) Also behind a paywall, so nobody can see it without paying Rupert money. The link name suggests the article is standard NewsCorp fare - an attack on teachers. An unacceptable source in this situation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Australia's largest circulation national broadsheet newspaper, the national newspaper of record, is now "just another right wing" publication? With the deepest respect, that view is so far off the deep end into hardcore political activism I'd suggest taking a step back. It's equivalent to a right winger saying the NYT isn't reliable because of its left wing bias. The Australian is a reliable source by any standards we have; it's the archetype of one. The strong dispute about Pascoe's aboriginality mentioned in this article, with multiple streams of hard evidence presented (aboriginal leaders of groups he claims to belong all publicly disavowing Pascoe, family tree showing zero aboriginal heritage, Pascoe's own reversals on his claims) is more than sufficient for the dispute to now be mentioned on the page. On another note I don't understand your take here; why on Earth would you want to stop our readers from even knowing that there's even a dispute about it, when the dispute is now published in multiple reliable sources with very strong evidence, and is part of a national conversation? Phil153 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Status quo ante bellum

I've restored the status quo until consensus can be achieved, as per guidlines WP:STATUSQUO. Bacondrum (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lost changes

With all of the editing and reverting that's been going on, some uncontroversial details I'd added as per this version appear to have been lost. I knew that I'd added that article mentioned by Ivar the Boneful before...! I know that others have added bits since, but I'd appreciate it if someone who has since edited the article could have another look at it and restore my additions and any subsequent non-contentious edits. We can get the ancestry issue sorted afterwards. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if that was me that inadvertently removed them when restoring status quo. Please feel free to reinstate. Only the claims relating to Aboriginality in the lead are currently being contested and thus should remain as status quo until dispute is resolved, other material can be re-added. Bacondrum (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)