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 [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)