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 article you told us to read did the 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)

Initial round of RfC discussion

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)

(Personal attack removed) 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)

This is literally a "he said" / "he said" debate. On the one hand , we have the author claiming aboriginal ancestry , on the other , the chair person for those same aborigines stating this individual is not part of them at all. Far as I can tell , we have a problem:

1. We can neither prove that he is or that he isn't because there are no birth records or any other paperwork that would prove his background as an aborigine. While DNA testing might work, it would depend on whether or not that testing facility has any dna from the tribes he says he's part of, and I'm well aware that some tribes won't participate in any dna testing.

2. Either person cold be wrong, and we can prove neither to be. Neither man knows the other, they haven't spoken with one another, nor do they have a way to prove or disprove their claims.

It's literally a living, breathing Goedel's incompleteness theorem! I would say, to be fair to both side, include the author's claims of ancestory, since people are reliable on their opinion , but also include that this is disputed, for example:

Bruce Pascoe states he's (insert name of Aborniginal tribe), but this is debated by chairman of same aborniginal tribe. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, as I have already said, I can never support use of the word "tribe". It's an archaic word from colonial times, rarely if ever used by Aboriginal people to describe themselves today. Secondly, Mansell is chair of the local land council, not "the chair person for those same aborigines". Despite many requests, nobody on this page has ever explained how being chair of a Land Council gives someone the right to speak with authority on the Aboriginality of another person. It always leads to comments to the effect of "But we all know who Mansell is, and he is important, and Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun said that Mansell said that......" This is simply not acceptable evidence for anything in Wikipedia, except, perhaps, for saying that "Bolt said....". (And to me, if Bolt said it, there's a fair chance the opposite is true.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wekeepwhatwekill What if I challenge your ancestry? Who do we believe you or me? Obviously we take your claims about your identity more seriously. Until there's a broader discussion it would be potentially defamatory to include an unverifiable claim to the contrary. I once had a Basque man tell me I'm not Australian and that I should go back to Ireland, does that mean I'm not Australian? Obviously not, people say stuff...we need to be able to verify or we say nothing. An individual is a reliable source for their own identity unless it is disputed by reliable sources (As repeatedly pointed out by other editors, the same ol' culture warriors are not reliable sources in this context) Bacondrum (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:HiLo48 well, the word "tribes" is used quite extensively regarding aborigines so you'd have to find reliable sources to have us not use the word "Tribes" in association.

Who wrote that? It's been a long time since I've participated in page of discussion with so many incompetent editors. But you did get me laughing out loud. The very first thing your link brought up was link to a Wikipedia article, List of Indigenous Australian group names, a title clearly avoiding the use of the word "tribe", and from this very encyclopaedia. Thank you for proving me right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 First, let's not comment on the commentators. Second, I'm not sure what you clicked on , but every time I click on it, the first item that shows up is

Aboriginal people - Survival International, which uses the word "tribe" extensively, just like the second link Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia which also uses the word "Tribes" extensively. By the way, List of Indigenous Australian group names does show up , but it's the third source and it also uses the word tribe. Find a source that proves Aborigines dont't use the word tribes as the links I present do show that it's used extensively and in relation to the aborigines. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another post that stuffed up the indenting, and this time from a seemingly experienced editor. Why has this discussion attracted so many incompetent editors? As for "...let's not comment on the commentators", Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, so we must ALWAYS be judging the reliability of what is presented as sourcing for content here, AND commenting on it when it fails that test. Bolt, the Herald Sun, The Australian and Quadrant are simply not reliable sources on this topic. This has been pointed out ad nauseam on this Talk page. (I do trust the Herald Sun for the footy scores. They have never been proven to be wrong on that front.) As for the word tribes, you ask me to "Find a source that proves Aborigines dont't use the word tribes". I shouldn't need to say this in a mature, logical discussion, but it's impossible to prove a negative of that kind. I simply say that I have never heard or seen modern Aboriginal people use the word. I have heard some say it's not an appropriate word to describe their social structures. I say all this as a person who has lived and worked with Aboriginal people for some years, which is obviously something you and the other naysayers here have not done. I don't know why you are so willing to ignore the genuine knowledge people like me have, while accepting unquestioningly the divisive, racist, right-wing lies from people like Bolt. Finally, what old white men wrote in ignorance based articles decades ago is an appalling way to decide how it's OK to describe Aboriginal people today. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum NOthing is stopping you from challenging my ancestory, however, I actually have paperwork to back it up, this gentleman wouldn't as Aboriginal tribes didn't use any paperwork to record who was born or who belongs in tribes. So it's not quite the same argument. You wouldn't have to believe me, I'd have paperwork to back up my claim, he doesn't. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, we need to be able to verify or we say nothing. An individual is a reliable source for their own identity unless it is disputed by reliable sources (As repeatedly pointed out by other editors, the same ol' culture warriors are not reliable sources in this context). When/if broader reportage rather than culture warrior commentary challenges Pascoes claims, then we add it, so far the strongest source is Pascoe and the hundreds of articles that identify him as Aboriginal. As it stands adding claims by Bolt et al is undue and defamatory. Bacondrum (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And based on his legal history, if Bolt said it, it's probably wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you are so willing to ignore the genuine knowledge people like me have ... — Possibly because your work has not been published. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not claiming to be an expert at all. But in all discussion it's wise to listen to those who clearly know more than oneself about a topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The Australian, 9 December 2019

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. [[12]] 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)

I'm more concerned about the fact it's presented as an editorial than the fact it was in the Australian. This is the other article I found directly on point, though with a very different viewpoint, along with an ABC video with Ken Wyatt I can't watch for some reason. SportingFlyer T·C 01:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"...the dispute is now published in multiple reliable sources" Nope. Still only the original two, Murdoch and Quadrant, both well known for troublemaking, lying and creating division on Aboriginal matters. I've made my point. I won't discuss it further here. Nor should you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Australian has been a constant partisan in the culture wars. We need to see claims being reported more widely than stridently biased pundits like the opinions pieces in the Australian, Herald Sun or Quadrant. When the claims turn up on the ABC or in Fairfax mastheads I will consider the content due, otherwise it's just strident bias from the usual suspects. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Both sides have been partisan in the history wars; hence why they are called a war. Characterising yourself as neutral while openly advocating for exclusion of a paper like The Australia is the quintessence of partisanship. You are a participant in this war yourself. As Phil153 says you're attempting to prevent WP readers "even knowing that there's even a dispute about it." The only neutral approach is to state both sides re Pascoe without editorialising & leave the reader to judge. 182.239.204.224 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This is where you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt. Anything that applies to the Herald Sun also applies to The Australian, for exactly the same reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• comment "The Australian is the main national newspaper, equivalent in Australia to the NYT" this comment displays a profound ignorance of the Australian media landscape. The Aus is more akin to the Aussie print version of Fox News. The NYT is more akin to The Age or the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a quality paper, but it's opinion pieces are famous for their strident bias.

As for IP's claims about both sides - You are seeking WP:FALSEBALANCE. All of the sources you have provided are either opinions pieces and therefore not reliable sources or depreciated sources. You claim that "Both sides have been partisan in the history wars" but we are only hearing from one, the one that has ended up in court over similar claims in the past. When the claims are widely reported then they are due. Currently they are not reported at all - opinions pieces and editorials are not reportage. If the Herald Sun and the Australian report that Pascoe has been proven not to be Aboriginal, that would be a completely different story...I hope you can understand the difference between news and opinion. Opinion is of no value here. Bacondrum (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Proven is not a reasonable standard for what we include. If we only stick to things that are proven, then we can never note a dispute (once it's proven beyond all objections, there is no dispute). Despite that, The Australian article of today meets that proven standard - it has a senior reporter making three (high defamatory if false, in a fact checked newspaper of record) claims: a) A thorough investigation of Pascoe's family tree proves no aboriginal heritage b) That leaders of every tribe of the 3 tribes Pascoe claims to come from publicly deny that he has any connection to them/heritage from that group and b) that Pascoe has been wrong or lied about his own heritage before. This is sufficient to put the current self-sourced claims in the article we have in dispute, and to note that dispute. We seek truth and to inform the reader of the current state of knowledge about the article in question; leaving up the author's own extensive, hagiographic self-claims about his aboriginality while not noting a high-level dispute about these claims fails to do both of these. Phil153 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And by the way to be clear I think the article should remain unchanged except for the noting of a dispute (and not even in the lead). The hagiographic self-claims of aboriginal heritage can stay until we have indisputable verification that they are false; but the dispute is notable enough now that it should be mentioned, and indeed is essential to balance the self-claims of the author, which are not reliable but which we are using. Phil153 (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all fine, except it's a small clique of the usual suspects making the claims. If it's actually widely reported rather than commented on in editorials and opinions pieces we can reassess. As it stands it is the opinion of a handful of culture warrior pundits with form in this regard...one of who was convicted and successfully sued for similar comments in the past. By proven, I mena widely reported as fact by a wide range of reliable media outlets - as it stands It's undue. Bacondrum (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

No Phil153, you're ignoring what others have already told you. The Australian is a Murdoch paper. On matters of Aboriginal affairs, all that is proven is that it consistently and frequently publishes material to create division in society and to pander to the racists and bigots it has attracted to its readership. And as has already been pointed out, you are not reading "news" content. You are seeing avowed editorial, opinion content, completely unacceptable for proving anything apart from the abovementioned slant of that journal. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Saying about The Australian "all that is proven is that it consistently and frequently publishes material to create division in society and to pander to the racists and bigots it has attracted to its readership" is quite clearly the partisan view of someone who subscribes to far-left views & therefore is as biased as those that you seek to disqualify as a reliable source due to bias. You take the bigoted of view of Aborigines that they all think alike & subscribe to the same views. They do not. That's your self-created stereotype. A number of prominent indigenous leaders have criticised Pascoe's thesis & questioned his claim to aboriginal ancestry. 182.239.204.224 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

My comment was about a source. Your comment was about me. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. Also, after a couple of days of watching and learning, and following advice given in good faith, all competent editors know how to correctly indent their comments. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Another irrelevant deflection about indenting or whatever. Your assessment of The Australian is 'simply truth by assertion' that this source cannot be used as its owned by Murdoch. Is The Times of London an acceptable source? It's owned by Murdoch, too.

Admit to you inherent bias so the conversation can move forward. 182.239.204.224 (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a personal, pretty automatic response of welcoming editors posting from IP addresses never seen on Wikipedia before, such as the post above. It's a common courtesy. However, I suspect it's the same recalcitrant IP editor we've been seeing for the past week, and who refuses to register to make things easier for all of us. But I can't be sure. It's difficult to have a sensible conversation with someone I may never have communicated with before, or with whom I may have had many exchanges. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a lot easier if IP editor was registered, and an actual editor, and familiar with some of the points we've been addressing - it might have saved 1000 words. But here we are. I am just adding at this stage that I visited my local library especially to view said opinion piece/editorial in yesterday's Australian, but it was nowhere that I could find, after paging through it from beginning to end at least 5 times. So it appears they have only published it online only, for what reasons one can only guess at. I have also had a look at various circulation figures (and updated The Australian article accordingly), just so we are in possession of some hard facts. I'm afraid that "largest circulation national broadsheet newspaper" doesn't really wash when it's the only broadsheet in the country now (and outsold by the SMH and Age). So, would Phil153 or whoever else has access to the piece, please reproduce a full citation, so that the rest of us can see who wrote it, and what the title is? And I'm sure that you could do a brief summary without breaching copyright. I'm afraid that I, having had quite a bit of experience with genealogical sources, don't trust other people's versions of "family trees" without seeing hard evidence of the sources. At this point, the subject of the article (Pascoe) still has the strongest right to make claims of his ancestry.

With regard to the bias of The Australian, I think it's pretty hard to argue neutrality. To be brief, I'll just cite a sentence out of the WP article, with citations: "The Australian has been criticised by some media commentators for helping to promote a right-wing agenda, and encouraging political polarisation in Australia." (The first two citations are written by highly-qualified and award-winning academics.)

References

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. - (unsigned comment added by Scott Davis at 00:47, December 8, 2019)

• 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 [13].

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)

• Leave out the ancestry in the lead but mention it in the body. Copied from above. 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. Further note, i have no opinion on whether The Australian is a Reliable source or not. Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• 1.Mention his self-reported ancestry in the lead as well as in the body. As people are reliable for their opinions about themselves, but also note that this is challenged as well. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Body only Let's not pigeon whole people based on ethnicity at the start. --Rob (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Body Only It should be mentioned that he believes that he is an aboriginal, but due to the disputed nature of the claim it should not be featured so prominently in the lead.HAL333 18:47, 14 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. [[14]] Phil153 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mention For the sake of neutrality.HAL333 18:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Vote count 20 Dec 2019

I've counted 6 votes for leave in lead vs 3 to leave out; 7 not to mention the challenge to ancestry vs 4, (+1 for footnote mention). I'd like to keep this section clear of further lengthy discussions, but I think it seems fair to close this RfC at this point. Perhaps just comment with corrections or objections, and if none I will close, say, within 3 days? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think your counting is off, but not by enough to change the result for the lead if we are just doing it on the numbers, but maybe for the body to mention that some commentators have doubts.

Column-generating template families

The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.

Column templates

Type	Family	Handles wiki table code?†	Responsive/ mobile suited	Start template	Column divider	End template
Float	"col-float"	Yes	Yes	{{col-float}}	{{col-float-break}}	{{col-float-end}}
	"columns-start"	Yes	Yes	{{columns-start}}	{{column}}	{{columns-end}}
Columns	"div col"	Yes	Yes	{{div col}}	–	{{div col end}}
	"columns-list"	No	Yes	{{columns-list}} (wraps div col)	–	–
Flexbox	"flex columns"	No	Yes	{{flex columns}}	–	–
Table	"col"	Yes	No	{{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}}	{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}}	{{col-end}}

^† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.

I don't know if the people who only commented elsewhere on the page should be counted. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would place myself in the "Mention dispute" column. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've moved you. Sorry I got it wrong. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip added from request below --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the counts, ScottDavis, although I'm pretty sure the IP editor was all one person (who appears to have flown the coop for now). I didn't trawl the discussion for votes, just added those who had actually voted, but I trust that you have extracted them correctly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another (hopefully brief) discussion section

Votes like this bother me a lot. Any vote to mention the dispute based on something like "Lot's of sources mention it" is a vote to go against Wikipedia policy, because those sources are simply not acceptable. This is not an opinion. It's fact. Quality of argument is what matters here. We should not be voting on this, otherwise the result depends entirely on the luck of who happens to be around at the time this RfC is listed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Herald Sun is reliable for Bolt's opinion, and the book and article are reliable that some people have disputed Pascoe's ancestry (or heritage?). There is definitely not consensus here to use Wikipedia's voice to question Pascoe's version, the discussion is only about whether to mention that other people have. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment That's an inconclusive vote (views expressed, elsewhere on this page are not votes) and as such the Status quo should remain. But that's up to the uninvolved editor who closes this. Note: I will be using all available avenues to contest any removal of his Aboriginal heritage as per reliable sources the overwhelming majority of which describe Pascoe as Aboriginal. WP:VERIFY WP:RELIABLESOURCE WP:NOTADEMOCRACY

Short list from a five second google search of RS's that describe him as either Bunurong, Indigenous, Aboriginal or some variant of:

• The Australian: [15]
• Inside Story: [16]
• The Sydney Morning Herald: [17]
• University of Queensland: [18]
• SBS (a highly regarded, award winning documentary): [19]
• The Guardian: [20]
• Schwartz group: [21]
• Meanjin: [22]
• National Library of Australia [23]
• Wheeler Centre: [24]
• 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

I can provide hundreds more if needed. Bacondrum (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The proposal here was not about avoiding stating that Pascoe is indigenous - it is about two things: Whether his indigenous status is significant enough to be in the lead (rather than saying he is Australian), and whether the material questioning his ancestry and heritage should be mentioned (along with material that refutes it, of course). I enumerated the conversation participants from elsewhere on the page as those people (including me) had clearly stated their opinion before yet another question got asked, and we just didn't repeat ourselves when someone put it as a question again. I named the people so it is open which ones are counted, and they can correct the record if they wish, and everyone else can see what is counted. I agree with whoever said it should not be closed as a numerical vote of those who showed up on the right few days. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Libel The claims made by Bolt et all cannot be included as per Wp:Libel Bolt has been sued and convicted for near identical claims in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are also required to comply with WP:BLP. Some of the comments on this page are at least as likely to be prosecuted for libel against Bolt as any against Pascoe. I don't think we can be guilty of libel against Pascoe for saying anything similar to "Bolt, O'Brien and Windschuttle have said..." --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

ScottDavis - Mention dispute, not in lead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added you to the consolidated list --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This list of sources strikes me as irrelevant. I can find thousands of sources listing Elizabeth Holmes as a visionary founder, Bernie Madoff as a well respected hedge fund manager, or the Jussie Smollett incident as a genuine attack. In fact every prominent fraud has thousands of (out of date) reliable sources backing up their fraudulent claims. What's happening here is quite plain: there are published very strong claims in reliable sources that Bruce Pascoe's ancestry is a fraud. These are not fringe blogs, they are mainstream publications with the highest circulation in the country, fact checked and checked by lawyers in the case of The Australian's article. They make the following very strong claims:

• That leaders of the three tribes that Pascoe claim to belong say he's not one of them
• That his ancestry tree shows zero aboriginal ancestry
• That he has previously said things about his ancestry that he later admitted to not be true
• That he has shown zero proof of his aboriginal ancestry

One of these sources is a national newspaper of record (The Australian). Why would we want to prevent our readers from knowing that there's a dispute in reliable sources, in the highest circulation newspaper in the country? I can only imagine ideological reasons. It is not libel to quote a mainstream newspaper disputing his aboriginality. It is in fact required if we wish to properly inform our readers what reliable sources say. Otherwise we're just a hagiography, uncritically printing whatever the person claims about themselves and censoring well sourced dispute about those claims. The only thing we've suggested adding, and not in the lead, is "His claims of aboriginal ancestry have been disputed [dispute reference]". Why anyone would want to censor that dispute, from reliable sources, is beyond me. Phil153 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Late additions

• Late to the party here; I just saw this on the RfC list (which I don't often visit). Not in lead, mention dispute. The piece by Tom Griifths ("Reading Bruce Pascoe", Inside Story – thanks to whomever posted the link somewhere above) at paragraphs 5 and 6 describes that Pascoe himself views his heritage in a nuanced way. To pigeon-hole him as strictly 'yes, Aboriginal' or 'no, not Aboriginal' does a disservice to both the subject and the reader. (Contrast the intro for Gary Foley.) Griffiths' mention of Bolt and Quadrant "weilding family trees like weapons" is, to me, an indication that those claims are being discussed more widely and are worthy of mention in the body. Though I can understand those who want to wait and see if the "controversy" fades away quietly. I'll add myself to the lists above. Pelagic (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure?

In the interests of getting this long-running discussion tied up, please comment on these proposals, based on my overall impressions of various discussions on this page and elsewhere and the vote above:

• Change the second sentence in the lead slightly, so instead of "He is of mixed Cornish, Bunurong, Yuin, and Aboriginal Tasmanian (Palawa) heritage...", it reads "He is of mixed Cornish and Aboriginal heritage...". (Then link to three groups in the body of the article.)
• Mention the dispute in the body, citing the secondary sources, plus the Quadrant article. I think that this can be done in a neutral voice which is not giving undue weight to the challenges to Pascoe's own claims of identity, but acknowledging their existence. I don't know about links to Bolt because they're all behind paywalls anyway, and as others have mentioned above, should Wikipedia be acting as his megaphone or publicity agent, taking more traffic to his opinions? Also, although we know it from this talk page, I don't think it can be mentioned that all of Bolt's and Windschuttle's claims are based on information from the man behind the blog, i.e. a single source of unknown reliability.

If all can agree broadly on these (or further modified after discussion here) proposals, then someone can move forward with some wordsmithing, perhaps generating a completely separate section on the talk page if editors want to make suggestions or criticise what has been added (apart from minor copyedits). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support the general changes proposed by Laterthanyouthink. A new section on the talk page with the proposed wording is a good idea. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• That sounds fair. Support I wonder if "British" is better than "Cornish" in the lead to stay at the same level of granularity as Aboriginal, but I'm not too fussed either way (I'd still just use "Australian" in the lead, but accept that is a minority view).

I don't think paywalls should be considered in deciding whether to use an online newspaper source. Paper copies are accessible in libraries, similar to books, and some web browsers have plugins that enable bypassing News Australia paywalls anyway, if readers don't have subscriptions. If Bolt is needed as a reference to "the dispute", I think that would be appropriate, but the Inside Story reference might be both sufficient and more WP:INDEPENDENT of either side of the dispute. I agree about not mentioning "the man behind the curtain" as we don't have any independent claim that he is the source of Bolt or Windschuttle's information. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment re Cornish vs British - just to note fyi that the current link is to Cornish Australians; and also that I know from my own Cornish grandfather's paternal line and my own experience with meeting Cornish people (neither in Oz), is that they can be very proud of their identity as Celtic Britons and don't necessarily identify with the rest of England, let alone the UK! But I'm not too fussed about this one, because I don't think that he had close Cornish ancestors, or has made a particular issue of this (separatist) aspect. And I did mean to keep "Australian" in the first sentence, as is. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I recognised potential sensitivity between Cornish and English, but thought "British" encompasses either everyone from Great Britain (now/recent) or the indigenous inhabitants including Cornish/Celtic but not necessarily Norman/Roman/Anglosaxon. I didn't think he claimed that all of his immigrant ancestors were Cornish, just that is how he identifies. Certainly the alleged family tree that shows no Aboriginal ancestry has ancestors from about eight other counties of England (and no, I don't want to cite that - we are looking for a consensus solution). British Australians redirects to Anglo-Celtic Australians which should encompass Cornish as well. My parenthetical comment meant that I would drop the first half of the second sentence from the lead, and not mention any heritage ethnic groups until the body of the article. In the same way, I only identify as "Australian", not any of the ethnic groups my ancestors came from, but I tend to find I have more interest in the minorities too. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Many Cornish people do like to distinguish themselves as separate and unique though, and there have been Cornish nationalists and independence movements on and off for decades at least (but this is a digression - not relevant to to Pascoe). Pascoe is of course a common Cornish name, so I assume his ancestry is mostly or wholly up the paternal line. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

I would like to move ahead with closure of this RfC. Does it need posting on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, or can it be closed via the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure process? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, never going to happen. If the sources authors don't like thethere efforts being referred to as a deranged hatched job maybe they should find something better to do with their time than run a deranged hatchet piece and stalk Pascoe. They probably should apologise to Pascoe for shamelessly fixating on him and dedicating a website to attacking him. The source is unhinged. Bacondrum (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, never going to happen. If the sources authors don't like thethere efforts being referred to as a deranged hatched job maybe they should find something better to do with their time than run a deranged hatchet piece and stalk Pascoe. They probably should apologise to Pascoe for shamelessly fixating on him and dedicating a website to attacking him. The source is unhinged. Bacondrum (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2020 (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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

New waves of recent evidence suggests Pascoe as fabricated his ancestry, this should at least be acknowledged somewhere. Elliot9000 (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide this evidence here. But don't waste your time doing so if it comes from any Murdoch/NewsCorp outlet, or Quadrant. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How is a content dispute grounds for Semi-protection? No one is edit warring, there is a discussion taking place - yes some editors are getting heated, but what you are asking for won't affect the tone of discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It might be grounds for semi-protection in the mind of yet another seemingly brand new editor, who has turned up here to support the swag of others this topic seems to have attracted. But wait. Not brand new! Elliot9000 has made a grand total of one other contribution to Wikipedia, on the Talk page of Economy of Cuba, almost two years ago. Fascinating. I shall present them with a standard, friendly welcome to Wikipedia, hopefully pointing them down the path of how things are actually meant to work here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Geez...This one appears to have really brought the "I'm not a racist but" culture warriors out swinging. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, with the Murdoch media saturation in Australia, too many people are actually brought up that way, and aren't even aware that another view of the world exists. From the Talk pages of another, entirely different Australian topic, I was taken to ANI a few months ago by a new editor who could not deal with my suggestion that, in the media landscape of this country, The Australian sits a little bit to the right of centre. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it matters any more whether the Herald Sun or Bolt in particular are considered right, left or any other wing. The point to me is that the "question" has been raised and featured prominently in multiple articles in newspapers with significant readership. That is enough to say that it should be addressed in the article. If we have any suitable references (WP:INDEPENDENT) that show he is Aboriginal, it won't need more than a sentence, so won't be WP:UNDUE. Do we have such a reference? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the same paper that published the claim he isn't aboriginal calling Pascoe "our most influential indigenous historian" https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/bruce-pascoe-the-man-behind-dark-emu/news-story/231cefabce2f0103de26b6402fef0e3f - when it comes to Aboriginal history and identity the Hun and the Aus have form, they have a history of malicious publishing in regard to denying the Aboriginality of fair skinned Aboriginal people (this is a heated issue in Australia, check out #toostrongforkaren for the latest racist disgrace "which 1% of you is Aboriginal") - the Hun has been sued and it's columnist charged over this sort of reporting. The reports are based on a blog and a self published book by an author with no relevant credentials.That's why I'll be fighting the inclusion of these claims until they are more widely reported. As I've said, when the Age, ABC or SMH publish the claims I'll consider taking them seriously. Bacondrum (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"The point to me is that the "question" has been raised and featured prominently in multiple articles in newspapers with significant readership. That is enough to say that it should be addressed in the article." Now that IS ridiculous. You are saying that if Bolt says something, anything, in the Herald Sun, straight into Wikipedia it goes. Do you really believe that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say exactly that. What I was thinking was along the lines of "Pascoe's Aboriginal heritage has been questioned by some commentators who claimed that his heritage was relevant to the assessing the accuracy of his writing.[ref Bolt or similar] In fact, his ancestry has been verified to include x, y and Z.[ref independent genealogy journal article]" That would provide the hooks to correct the record for anyone who has seen a Bolt article or derivative, and come to Wikipedia as the fount of all knowledge to see if it is true. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

off-line sources

I wanted to ask anybody who wants to cite an offline source, to please give more details, than just saying it supports a particular position. Being offline doesn't disqualify a source (many great sources are offline), but given the contentious nature of this debate, I think there needs to be at least a few people who've read a particular source, and agreed on what it said, before everyone can evaluate it. --Rob (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, direct quotes have been requested a number of times, but proponents have failed to provide them. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by offline, Rob - are you including subscription-only content? I have asked for a description of The Australian's editorial/opinion piece mentioned above, but that hasn't been forthcoming. Regardless of the issues regarding their reliability, I don't think they are able to be cited unless we (or the citing editor) has a clear idea of what was said and who said it. I'm going to be picking up Pascoe's book Convincing Ground from the library this week sometime, in which, according to one of the already cited articles Reading Bruce Pascoe, by Tom Griffiths, he explores his identity, and will see if anything further can be extracted from that. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant non-free. --Rob (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Up until today, I couldn't accesss the The Astralian, but could just now, not sure if everyone else can. I think we can use some from Truth is at the heart of an indigenous voice by Chris Kenny in "Inquirer" section as an example of widely published notable *opinion*, not fact. According to our article on The Australian it is the most widely cirulated newspaper in the country. Hard to ignore. Selected quotes:

• The case against much of Pascoe’s work is strong and it is vital because his book has been awarded prizes, will go on to school curriculums and will inform ABC documentaries.
• There is also the issue of Pascoe’s claimed Aboriginal heritage, not evident in detailed studies of his genealogy and not explained by him; even though he has received prizes and positions as an indigenous Australian.

Interestingly/ironically Chris Kenny (like Andrew Bolt) essentially concede they themselves are the minority position, and the the mainstream recognized sources (e.g. school curriculum, ABC, etc...) accept Pascoe's claims as valid. So, I think for Wikipedia, the issue is do we mention critics of Pascoe as opinion, or not mention them at all. I say mention, without giving undue weight. Quoting or paraphasing the most widely published national newspaper of Australia (without endorsing) can not be equated with libel. I can provide more quotes if requested, as I've saved a copy of this article (but hopefully others can read the link, not sure). --Rob (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Chris Kenny? Not a reliable source by any measure. The guy is a notorious culture war pundit, notorious for broadcasting and publishing hyperbole and bald-faced lies. Repeatedly states falsehoods and he never backs down from them. Bacondrum (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"it is the most widely cirulated newspaper in the country" No it's not, and I doubt that's what they claim. It might be the most widely circulated national newspaper, but that's because it's really the only one. A pointless claim. And as has already been discussed above, a wide circulation does not automatically correlate with accuracy or reliability. Possibly quite the opposite. And it's still a Murdoch/Newscorp publication, just like the Herald Sun, and thus not reliable on matters involving Aboriginal affairs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt, the Hun and the Aus are not reliable sources on this subject

This article goes into the history of attacks by the "culture warriors". Until anyone other than the Hun and the Aus publishes the claims they don't pass muster. Bolt Pascoe and the culture wars

Bolt has been found guilty of racial discrimination based on similar claims: Bolt found guilty of race discrimination

Until other more reputable sources make the claims these claims are WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and as proven by the Bolt vs Eatock decision, they are potentially WP:LIBEL and as such they cannot be published here without better sourcing. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC are Andrew Bolt and other "culture warriors" reliable sources for Aboriginal identity claims

Historian Bruce Pascoe has recently had his Aboriginality questioned by Andrew Bolt. The claim is highly controversial and similar claims by Bolt have landed him in court: Bolt found guilty of race discrimination, the "scandal" is based on a self published blog and is being run by "culture warriors" The Australian and the Herald Sun (both owned by the News Corp). No other mainstream outlets have run the story and the claims made are potentially WP:LIBEL. Are Andrew Bolt and other "culture warriors" reliable sources for Aboriginal identity claims? Bacondrum (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Clearly not. As well as the fact that Bolt has already been convicted of lying on matters such as this, so we would be opening up Wikipedia to potential libel charges, the reasons have been mentioned so many times above that it's depressing that we are still discussing this. It's a sign of the Murdoch media's power over a huge chunk of the Australian population. And a small point of order: while it's all part of the gigantic Murdoch empire, our own article on the Herald Sun says it's published by "News Corp Australia, itself a subsidiary of News Corp." HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right bout New Corp, adjusted RFC to reflect this fact. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• No agree with the possible libel claim. A Google News search shows the only two newspapers talking about Bruce Pascoe in the last month are the Herald Sun and the Arizona Daily Star, the former isn't necessarily reliable due to the fact the primary commentator has been found guilty of making similar statements about other people and the latter is a different Bruce Pascoe (apparently a basketball journalist.) We need more to go on\we have to have more than one source to avoid WP:BLP issues. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That's precisely how I read it too. Bacondrum (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Point of order 1 - This RFC clearly overlaps the previous, not-yet-closed RFC raised 02:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC), contrary to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple RfCs on one page. I suggest that the question "are Bolt etc reliable sources?" (but see also Point of order 2 below) should be a subsection of the first RFC. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this RFC about reliability of sources and the veracity of claims. There's no overlap with another RFC which is about mentioning aboriginality and potentially defamatory accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The other RFC has two parts, the second of which is whether to "mention ... allegations, coming from two avowedly right-wing sources" about Pascoe's claims to Aboriginality, and there are many comments thereunder about the reliability of those sources - namely Bolt and the Herald Sun - so there does seem to be an overlap with this RFC about whether Bolt et al are reliable sources for Aboriginal identity claims. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Mitch Ames. This is a re-argument of the first rfc, the result of this would affect RC1 as well - move to close this rfc until the first one is completed. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Mitch Ames and Wekeepwhatwekill. Additionally, this is in no way a neutrally worded RFC. Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Point of order 2 - The section title is are Andrew Bolt [etc] reliable sources for Aboriginal identity claims but the text of the RFC asks Should the claims made by Bolt et al be included in the article?. These are two different questions, and could have two different answers. I suggest that section heading and text should both ask the same question, so that there is no doubt as to which question the responses are answering. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Modified question to clarify. Bacondrum (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think that Mitch is probably right about the overlapping RfCs. I haven't been well enough to apply my brain fully to the whole thing in recent days, but will be coming back to it. I've been mulling further about putting something in a footnote though - not anything libellous, but just the fact that certain [named people and sources] have questioned his heritage and identification as Aboriginal. I think the fact that they're who they are and how and where the allegations have been written (obvious POV columns, websites and video) will make it fairly obvious to anyone with a discerning mind how much credence they have and how much weight the allegations should be given. Bolt's name attached to anything is a red flag, for starters. By only stating it as a brief footnote, it is clear that it's not part of Wikipedia's reputable content about Pascoe. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Not widely reported, claims made by an unreliable pundit, claims are potentially libelous and defamatory. Bacondrum (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Apply context. Herald Sun and The Australian are reliable sources, but the weight of all reliable sources does not support the claims made by Andrew Bolt here. The claims can be included, but only in the context of being Bolt's opinion. As for being libellous, we have nothing to support that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We have nothing to support that other than court proceedings and outcomes: Bolt found guilty of race discrimination

• Comment Had anybody suggested that Andrew Bolt and other "culture warriors" [are] reliable sources for Aboriginal identity claims? I was unaware there is a real question about whether Bolt is a reliable source about Pascoe's identity. Pascoe says he is [particular kinds of] Aboriginal. Bolt and named representatives of those groups say he is not. Their comments have been widely reported (and presumably read). Some of those readers will not just lap it up, and may turn to Wikipedia as part of seeking the truth. I see no reason not to provide a brief sourced summary of the situation. It seems odd to me that some editors would prefer to pretend the issue was not raised than to answer it, just because the loudest voice is "right wing". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely concur with ScottDavis. Outside anon IPs and low-edit users, nobody is saying Bolt et al are reliable sources of fact on aboriginal identity. Nobody is saying Wikipedia, in its own voice, should dispute Pascoe's identity, or give undue weight to critics. This bogus sub-rfc is bordering on a straw man argument. --Rob (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the strawman fallacy. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but nobody wants discussions based on argument from fallacy, it's first year undergrad stuff and extremely tedious. Bacondrum (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Considering Bolt/The Herald Sun is the only newspaper source discussing this (apart from two separate other opinion pieces in the Australian and the Saturday), most of the articles appear to be more opinion pieces than actual news reporting, i.e. it seems as if the controversy is being manufactured. I'm not concerned the sources are "right wing," I'm concerned there's only really one source reporting this and its reliability is very much in doubt. If the Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, etc ran a news piece where one of the representatives publicly disowned Pascoe I'd likely change my support. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment SportingFlyer, I have a question. Is it possible the two papers mentioned have the same editorial board? For example, if I remember correctly, here in Canada, the Sun family of newspapers and Postmedia family of newspapers sometimes share the same editor and the head editor works directly under Postmedia. This leads to some articles appearing in multiple papers. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: Possibly, but my guess would be no, as the Australian's editorial wasn't even directly on Pascoe, but rather lamenting what children are taught in schools. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, thanks for the reply. One thing though, I guess I didn't necessarily explain myself well. What I meant was that due to the same editorial boards operating both papers. They sometimes cover topics in a similar way or use one column in all the papers. Wasn't necessarily talking about just editorials. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: Hi, both papers are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. These mastheads share stories and columns. Editors at both papers have worked for both of these papers at different time, not sure if there is currently editorial overlap, but there has been in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, thank you for the information. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• ScottDavis IS this a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? This has all been adressed previously:

First - "Their comments have been widely reported" Not true, they've been published by two mastheads, both owned by the same publisher. Second - "some editors would prefer to pretend the issue was not raised than to answer it" We are not here to answer spurious allegations by Bolt and Chris Kenny. They're undue as they are not widely reported, rather pushed by the same old "culture warriors". The main voice making the claim has been convicted (and successfully sued) for near identical claims in the past: Bolt found guilty of race discrimination without wider reportage publishing such claims would clearly violate WP:LIBEL. Until other major mastheads report these claims their publication here is a blatent violation of several policies and guidlines. Bacondrum (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I cited one of the articles above (re Bolt's conviction), which I'll put here as well White is the new black - highly offensive stuff by most standards. And I absolutely agree that those people are not reliable sources for Aboriginal identity or history, but I still think that the issue of whether to mention their columns is a separate one. I'm still mostly on the "wait and watch" side, but can also see some logic in mentioning it in order to dismiss it/put it in context, hence the footnote idea. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laterthanyouthink, Absolutely agree. The reason I initiated this RFC is to make it clear that if we were to include these claims made by Bolt et al, that Bolt et al are not reliable sources for such claims. I personally think this whole debate is ridiculous as there's so many policies and guidelines violated here that it's all but impossible that the claims can be legitimately included without wider reportage. Bacondrum (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolt's views have actually been discussed by more than a single publisher. For example, The Saturday Paper article "Bolt, Pascoe and the culture wars" by Rick Morton takes a deep dive into it, not just Bolt's claims on Pascoe's identity, but on his critique of Pascoe's work. It gives informative quotes by Pascoe himself on how he responds to the critiques, and even talks of Pascoe's specific response in 2012 to a Bolt column. Nobody, outside a few Wikipedians, denies the relevance of the critique's of Pascoe when talking about Pascoe, not even Pascoe. How exactly we cover this is open to discussion, and must be handled carefully. But, can we stop pretending there's nothing to talk about. If anybody has trouble reading the source, I'll post quotes. --Rob (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that link to The Saturday Paper article. But rather than adding any credibility to Bolt's claims as you seem to imply, it tears them and his entire position to shreds. In simple terms, this still leave us with nothing but the claims a convicted liar about Aboriginal people in the papers of a single publisher. The Saturday Paper has simply confirmed that we must not mention Bolt's views. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Morton (Saturday Paper) article is listed under further reading, as is another one which mentions Bolt et al. (Tom Griffiths, in Inside Story) - which also mentions Pascoe's further writings on the topic in Convincing Ground, which is why I am going to get hold of a copy to read that soon. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! You really don't read what I write do you. I have never said, not once, that Bolt is a reliable source of expert fact of indigenous identity. Stop making me a strawman, that you can knock down. I'm saying there are notable criticisms of Pascoe, regarding his identity, and his writing, that are worthy of discussing in the article. How we discuss them, is a difficult question, that needs discussion. Outside of anon IPs and low-edit users, no established editors actually want Wikipedia to deny or refute Pascoe's identity. Please stop making this whole discussion a binary debate of "pro" an "con". I am arguing simply that the fact that there are critics is something that can be mentioned in the body in an appropriate way. We a whole article discussing Obama birther claims, which quote birther claims, and *never* use those birthers as sources on the fact of Obama's birth (and yes, of course that's an infinitely more notable case, I'm not saying it's the same). This discussion is going nowhere, because a few editors continue argue against an irrelevant position. --Rob (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"I'm saying there are notable criticisms of Pascoe, regarding his identity..." No, there are not. All such criticisms initially emanate from the same totally unacceptable source. Stop wasting your time and ours pushing this nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not pushing it. Pascoe himself, along with The Saturday Paper have discussed Bolt's comments. By your logic Saturday Paper and Pascoe himself are pushing libel against Pascoe (since both discuss it extensively). This may shock you, but Wikipedia regularly discusses critiques that are discredited.   Wikipedia discusses extensively Obama birthers, but makes absolutely clear that no reputable source agrees with them. I do not, and have never, attempted to promote Bolt's views on anything. Mentioning what somebody says is not the same as endorsing it. --Rob (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Why should we give Bolt any publicity at all? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, so from what I understand Bolt is the Australian equivalent of Ezra Levant (i.e. publishes false stories, has made libelous claims, etc.)? MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it. I'm planning to visit Canada next year. Thanks for the warning about something to avoid. (And I though bears were the biggest risk!) HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 Yes, very similar public figures, except that Bolt is smarter than Levant (doesn't publicly espouse such extreme far-right ideas) and is given a veneer of legitimacy by Murdoch's outlets. Bacondrum (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the the Saturday Paper and Pascoe himself were trying to give "publicity" to Bolt, by mentioning him? --Rob (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The Saturday Paper needs to sell advertising by attracting readers. We don't have that need. As for Pascoe, I'm not a mind reader, but perhaps he felt the need to defend himself. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 We might as well just delete the Andrew Bolt article, if we're going to be motivated by not giving him any publicity. We are more than capable of discussing his claims without saying they are true. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. His own article IS the place to mention that he is a money driven public bigot. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, Bacondrum, et al, do you accept the Saturday Paper is a reliable source in its coverage of Pascoe? Regardless of whether we should use it, can we use it, per WP:RS?. --Rob (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, The Saturday Paper is a reliable source in general, but it provides us with nothing to add to this article. That Bolt attacked an Aboriginal person in his work is not noteworthy. He attacks lots of Aboriginal people that way, along with scientists, anyone to the left of Tony Abbott, academics of most kinds, etc.... Geez, if we added Bolt's thoughts to the articles on everyone and everything he has demonised, he would be delighted. He too seeks publicity to sell advertising. That's a key element of his job. It's not our job to help him on that front. Maybe though you could add something from The Saturday Paper to Bolt's own article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Saturday paper is known for very high standards of factual reporting. The Herald Sun and the Australian are reliable news sources, but not Andrew Bolt column's or Chris Kenny's opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, we all agree The Saturday Paper is a reliable source. That's progress. Bolt & Kenny are just opinion makers, agreed. The Saturday Paper article is not an opinion piece. It is a rather thorough analysis of facts. It is informative on Pascoe, on multiple points. It discusses Pascoe's identity, Pascoe's statements on it, and it's relevance. It also discusses other things, that are worth mentioning (e.g. comments on research accuracy). I know it's really hard for you accept, but eventually this article will need to discuss that there are various criticisms of Pascoe in the world (mostly about his work, not ancestry). Currently, the article's only mention that any criticism exists is the text that a positive review "...touched off a debate there about Pascoe's use of his historical sources,[14] which led to the publication of some unfavourable reviews". So, we're telling readers some reviewers don't agree with Pascoe, without giving any idea of who they are, what their qualifications are, what they're saying, why they're saying it, and how they're refuted. Quadrant is one citation used to support this statement, even though I've been told here, that Quadrant is a very bad source. So, maybe let's use a better source. --Rob (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, I didn't realise Quadrant and Keith Windschuttle (an academic persona non grata with a reputation for authoring falsehoods) has been used to cite claims, removed accordingly as per WP:RS Bacondrum (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rob - just a quick note now (no time for the longer story) to say that the Dark Emu article does include criticisms about his work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

His own article IS the place to mention that he is a money driven public bigot. This is most decidedly not what the Andrew Bolt article is for, or any article, or any encyclopaedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be if that's what reliable sources say, and some of them come pretty close to doing just that. Mind you, I wasn't really being totally serious there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we all agree that these criticisms should be mentioned in their proper context? This doesn't mean we have to indicate these are valid criticisms, only that they are notable. Andrew Bolt's pronouncements in the past are absolutely no reason to believe that discussing this matter would be libellous, and we have no reason to believe what has been published by News Corp here is libellous. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

No, not while Bolt et al are the only ones making the claim. Until someone else makes the claim it cannot be published here as it is 100% WP:UNDUE, just the opinion of people with a strident bias and one of whom was convicted and sued for near identical claims in the past which also makes these claims potentially WP:Libel. Unless the claims are made by a credible IRS I'm going to fight their addition every step of the way as adding these stridently biased and libelous comments from a repeat offender would violate a number of policies and guidelines. If you are desperate to restate these claims one could argue is due to add them to Bolts article using the Saturday Paper article, there's already a section about his conviction for making similar claims in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip - Bolt routinely criticises people he can get readers and viewers with bigoted and right wing tendencies to hate or fear. It's his self appointed job. We have articles on a lot of those people. We don't and won't mention Bolt's criticisms in all the other articles. Why should we add them to Pascoe's? HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty notable for anybody to have their nationality questioned in any reliable sources, whether that is true or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not his nationality that's being questioned, and the sources that have been presented are not reliable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The article presently says He is of mixed heritage, including Tasmanian (Palawa), Bunurong (of the Kulin nation), Yuin... Kulin Nation says The Kulin nation is a nation of Aboriginal Indigenous Australian tribes from the southern States, Australia. - if his claims for Yuin or Kulin are challenged, that would be prima facie a challenge to his nationality in that sense of the word "nation". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, Bolt is an primarily an essayist and opinion-writer, not an investigative journalist. He'll cherry-pick facts to make his argument, and Morton's article shows some examples where Bolt's research and fact-checking were, shall we say, "less than top-notch"? (E.g. a town of 1000 people rather than 400; criticising a book that he hasn't himself read.) But to say that he intentionally lies is itself potentially defamatory. He was found guilty of offending people, not lying about them. Pelagic (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Note re my recent edit

Hi, just to let you all know that in the process of restoring some of the content that had been lost earlier, I reworded the lead again slightly, in this edit. My reasons are these: that he is first and foremost a writer and that should be prominent in his description rather than his ethnicity; secondly that in the course of some reading I've been doing in order to try to compile a(n?) MOS for Australian Aboriginal and Indigenous terminology, a few things have filtered into this edit: that Aboriginal people are Australians (hence nothing wrong with calling him Australian, even if also incontrovertibly Aboriginal), and also it's best to use the most specific term (i.e. Aboriginal rather than Indigenous, Yuin rather than Aboriginal, etc.) if known. I hope this makes sense, but of course all is still open to discussion... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Another thing that needs checking (my copy currently being out on loan) is the wording about Dark Emu - reviews suggest it covers both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (together known as Indigenous Australians), and if true then we should reflect that - but it's been a while since I read it and I cannot now recall anything relating specifically to Torres Strait Islander people. Anyone got a copy handy? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a clear improvement. It puts things in the right order. Thanks. --Rob (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink - The index of the book takes me to two mentions of Torres Strait Islands, one that says "Watercraft were a significant tool in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait fishing economy...", and the other "Other people in the Gulf region and Torres Strait Islands built complicated structures on stilts or beautifully domed buildings constructed of great arcing bamboo canes covered on dense grass thatchings. These buildings catered for large extended families." I haven't read the book in full for a while, but I can't recall a lot about those people. That might be most of it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob and HiLo48. I took a sneak peek at the index in a copy in a bookstore I happened to pop into this afternoon, but those extracts help, so thanks for that. I think I need to add something covering both groups, given that both are mentioned, for the sake of accuracy. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I adjusted the grammar of the lead paragraph to make it easier to read. I don't think I made any substantial content changes this time, but would still lean towards pushing his "mixed heritage" further down the paragraph or article, as those heritages seem to be drawn from no closer than great grandparents, and quite possibly more remote. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you should wait for the outcome of the #RfC rather than continuing to edit the article regarding his heritage/ancestry. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

From Scott Davis - "those heritages seem to be drawn from no closer than great grandparents, and quite possibly more remote" I know you mean well here, but that is an unhelpful (and actually quite a provocative) form of comment. The principles for claiming Aboriginality are complex, and do not depend on how far back or what fraction of someone is Aboriginal DNA. That, in fact, was the kind of comment that ultimately got Andrew Bolt into legal trouble. I have a French ancestor from over 400 years back. I regard it as a very significant part of my ancestry. It's also important to emphasise that there are no degrees of Aboriginality. One is either Aboriginal, or not. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The one-drop rule is often regarded as offensive too, and I did not mention whether or not Pascoe "is", "considers himself to be", or "is considered by others to be" Aboriginal (or any of Palawa, Yuin, Bunurong or Cornish). I was improving the grammar of the text as it currently is, which I thought was your preferred form of identity. I have not traced my own ancestry much further back than immigrants to what is now Australia (and I have not found any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders). I do not claim any or all of the 8 or more countries and counties that my Australian migrant ancestors came from, even though I have a drop of each. Just because some of my migrant ancestors 180 years ago were probably descended from Huguenot immigrants to England, I don't claim to be French. I certainly don't claim to be all of those ethnic groups that my ancestors came from, but I do claim to have their heritage. We currently state that Pascoe is of "mixed heritage" and name four of them. We cannot discuss what the "right" words might be to use, if someone criticises every time someone uses a word they are familiar with, but might be offensive to some third party in another context. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, what I wrote above is about the legal issues surrounding Aboriginality in Australia. Again, one is either Aboriginal, or one is not. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The first two sentences as they presently stand do not identify whether he is or is not Aboriginal. They say he is Australian and identify four ethnic groups (three of which are Australian Aboriginal) in his heritage. We each have four grandparents, so it could be read that his four grandparents were each a different one of those four groups, but I don't think we are trying to say that much, and have not ruled out other unidentified ethnic groups. Yes, there is a legal definition in Australia of Aboriginal, but I don't think there is one for Bunurong, Yuin, Palawa and Cornish. And even if there is, has Pascoe claimed (or do we have independent references) that he is each of those, or only that he has heritage from each of them? Even if he is all of those, his notability does not come from that, it comes from him being an Australian writer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"...his notability...comes from him being an Australian writer." Which is why I don't understand the obsession of those who don't like what Dark Emu says to prove he isn't Aboriginal. And most of that post above is pure nitpicking. Does it really matter what peoples he belonged to? (Unless, of course, like Bolt, you just want to discredit an Aboriginal person.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Jesus wept. It is you Rob, who isn't listening. We are not including spurious allegations made by partisans in the "culture wars", one of whom has been convicted under the Racial Discrimination Act for near identical claims, at least not until they are widely reported, which I doubt they will be because they are spurious claims and therefor potentially libelous and obviously undue. End of story. If other mastheads publish the claims we can reassess (Schwartz Media's The Saturday Paper did not make or support the claim, they refuted it). Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps go add it to the Andrew Bolt article if you are so desperate to repeat the offending comments. There's already a section for the last time he ended up in court for making racist claims about fair skinned Aboriginal people Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that the (current or heritage) ethnicity of the author is significant to the claims in Dark Emu, and even if it was, that argument belongs in that article, not here. If the content of Dark Emu is contentious, then surely it would carry even more weight if it had been written by white/colonial people. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been my view from the very start of this discussion. I don't know why those who hate what Dark Emu says want to prove Pascoe isn't Aboriginal. My personal view is that opposition to what's in the book is hardly rational anyway (it's all about what historical WHITE writers actually wrote), so perhaps further irrational attacks on Aboriginal people are to be expected. Whatever, one thing the book does say, in several places (yes, I have my copy in front of me) is that Pascoe is Aboriginal. There is no acceptable evidence to the contrary, so we too say that he is Aboriginal. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 Spot on. Bacondrum (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Some New Input from Dark Emu Exposed

Excuse me if I am editing in the wrong space but I am a Wiki novice. I am Roger Karge and edit the Dark Emu Exposed website https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org (one can search various news articles to confirm this). I along with our 31 researchers from around Australia have been feeding data to Andrew Bolt/Herald Sun, Quadrant and The Australian newspaper with regard to exposing the fabrications of Bruce Pascoe's book, Dark Emu. In addition, on a separate topic, our group has developed the alleged ancestry of Bruce Pascoe and presented his family tree from publicly available data as we have found it. More formal investigations are currently underway by other institutions in Australia so my suggestion would be to leave the Wiki page as it currently is and just wait until further develops arise, either from Bruce Pascoe himself confirming his Aboriginal ancestry with documentation, or alternatively if other authorities make an public statement at some time. The veracity of the book Dark Emu should not be dependent on the ancestry of the author, but the real issue for many Aboriginal people is that there are allegations, as yet unproven but strongly suggested, that Bruce Pascoe may possibly be claiming Aboriginal descent when he is not entitled to. Only Bruce Pascoe himself can really clear this up and given Wiki is an important resource for Australians, his biography needs to be accurate.Austhistory99 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Similarly, somebody seems to be continually removing any reference to valid literary criticism of Pascoe's Dark Emu book. The two PUBLISHED critiques (as a book and a literary magazine article) of Pascoe's use of the historical records are completely valid, acceptable sources for use in Wiki and should remain and not be removed AGAIN.Austhistory99 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roger, Quadrant is not a reliable source. From Wikipedia "Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Have a read of this if you have time: Advocacy

Yes the wiki entry Advocacy I believe proves our point - Bruce Pascoe and his book Dark Emu is advocating for something (Re-writing of history and re-appraisal of Aboriginal Society) which many others strongly disagree with and have gone to the effort to present facts, by publishing, that refute Pascoe's position. As for your argument that 'From Wikipedia "Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting' we note a) the use of the word 'most', not 'all', editors, so obviously some editors think it is OK, b) the fact that Wikipedia itself supports the page Quadrant (magazine) which lists a "who's who" of important Australians as contributors and past editors of Quadrant ( Are you really suggesting these Australians are nutters or unreliable reporters of facts and opinions? ; if Quadrant was unreliable why does it have a complimentary Wikipage?) and c) the author of Bitter Harvest- the rebuttal to Pascoe's Dark Emu book - is Peter O'Brien - a 21 yr veteran of the ADF ( Lieutenant Colonel), who holds a BSc and two additional Diplomas, and has written many articles on Australia for Quadrant. Hardly a nutter who's book is not worthy of analysis. So the inclusion of the two rebuttal critiques to Pascoe's Dark Emu (O'Brien's published book and the Quadrant article) seems perfectly reasonable to include. We are not saying remove any of the positive reviews to Pascoe's Dark Emu - all we are saying for a proper balanced view, readers need to be aware that there are strong published critiques of Pascoe's treatment of the historical records. Austhistory99 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've not suggested anything - Wikipedia lists it as a depreciated source. Please read WP:POINT reliable sources Advocacy and COI. Bacondrum (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Austhistory99 - As you admit yourself, you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. (For starters, calling it "wiki" is just wrong. There are many wikis. Wikipedia is only one of them.) That post demonstrates so many (understandable) misunderstandings it's impossible to know where to start. At this point, I'll stick with our policy of assuming good faith. Work on that for a bit, and go away and educate yourself about what Wikipdia really is. Outline of Wikipedia is a good place to start. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, all of Wikipedia is "the wrong space" for what your peddling. If other users hadn't already responded to your posts, I would consider blanking it. I won't respond to any specific claims you raised, and hope nobody does. If somebody else decides to do a section blanking, feel free to blank my comments at the same time. --Rob (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to blanking, the discussion seems inappropriate re: promo/COI Bacondrum (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the section should be blanked, so have restored it. We may disagree with Austhistory99's statements, and yes they may be considered promotional, but the conflict of interest is openly declared, and I believe the original post is in good faith. Rational discussion is better than simply deleting everything. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If editors consider it appropriate to close this discussion, the use of {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}, by uninvolved editors or administrators, per those templates' documentation, with an appropriate reason, would be more appropriate than blanking. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

On the issue of blanking, I am with Mitch Ames here, mainly for the reason that it is a statement of Conflict of interest, as raised by Bacondrum on Austhist's talk page. Austhistory99 is entitled to their opinion but it now seems clear that they shouldn't be editing any pages about Pascoe or his work.

Re the Quadrant article and Peter O'Brien's work, it remains on the Dark Emu page, where it belongs. Quadrant is noted as a generally unreliable source, but not actually deprecated - i.e. is is usable as a source. Although we're all aware of its slant, it nonetheless has a prominent literary focus and for this reason IMO is acceptable in an article about a book, but not on a BLP page.

What about Mitch's proposal to get an uninvolved admin to close the discussion?

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Bacondrum (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I considered closing the discussion as an uninvolved editor but decided I needed to mention something. It's unclear to me why editors felt the need to blank this discussion. Editors with a declared COI are not forbidden from editing a talk page. In fact that's what they're encouraged to do.

If their proposals for improvement are not constructive, then it's probably better to tell them that rather than blanking the discussion. If an editor with a COI keeps making non constructive proposals, it's probably reasonable to ask them to stop and if they keep at it, it may be reasonable to either remove their continued attempts or ask for them to be blocked or topic banned.

This is a BLP, and if editors feel the comments were sufficient BLPvios then blanking for that reason would be acceptable, but the editor's COI doesn't come in to it.

Remember also in many cases there's no need to formally close a discussion. If editors explain why no action is warranted from a proposal, it's often enough for others to take in board. Even if the editor who started the discussion replies, it may be enough to simply ignore the reply, or simply say their reply hasn't changed things. The discussion will often die a natural death and eventually be automatically archived.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above discussions, (1). Here is an on-line copy of Dark Emu for those editors who have not read book but want to come up to speed on this talk page. (Redacted) (2) It still appears to me that the following statement in Bruce Pascoe’s Wikipedia entry is not balanced : “A favourable review of its cultural implications in the academic online magazine The Conversation touched off a debate there about Pascoe's use of his historical sources.[15]“ This statement correctly cites the favourable review (Ref 15) but the counter arguments in the “debate” that it “touched off” are not cited. Various Editors deem that “Quadrant” and the “Bitter Harvest” book should not be referenced here (but are to be included in the Dark Emu Wikipedia page instead), but I would suggest that one or more of the following references from The Australian newspaper should be cited here to provide the “debate” that was “touched off” by the review in the cited "The Conversation"piece. In the interest of balance for readers of Wikipedia I think one or more of these additional citations are justified. ,,. (3) One editor, Bacondrum (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC), states "Yes, the Saturday paper is known for very high standards of factual reporting. The Herald Sun and the Australian are reliable news sources, but not Andrew Bolt column's or Chris Kenny's opinion." I would take issue with this given that Rick Morton, in The Saturday Article cited here in the Bruce Pascoe/Dark Emu debate, did not disclose his COI by mentioning that his employer, Schwartz Publishing, was also the Publisher of Bruce Pascoe, who was the subject of Morton's article on Dark Emu. . It appears to me that given this COI, if the 'opinionated', The Saturday Paper, is accepted as a 'reliable' source in this particular debate, then The Australian articles above should also be acceptable as balancing counter arguments in the "debate touched off" by The Conversation piece. Austhistory99 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Point one - Inclusion of proposals made by Austhistory99, about claims he has made himself, based on this hatchet job which he wrote and published on the subject of this BLP is completely unacceptable and a blatant/obvious violation of WP:Libel and WP:BLP among others.
• Point two - Pointing out a COI in the Saturday Papers article does not magically make the aforementioned hatchet job (and it's republishing in some hyperbolic culture wars op-eds) a reliable source...it simply means The Saturday Paper article is also not a RS in this context
• Point three - This [25] is basically online stalking - a real hatchet piece, bordering on deranged fixation. And that's a very, very kind appraisal. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll come back to the rest later, but I am alarmed that Austhistory99 has posted a PDF of a currently-in-print book, on an apparently unofficial website. This appears to be a serious WP:COPYVIO and unless you can state the correct permissions, should be taken down immediately. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't notice that, but it is a clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. I think Austhistory99 facilitating the theft of the intellectual property of the subject of this BLP is outrageous and between that and their declared conflict of interest they should recuse themselves from all articles relating to Bruce Pascoe or his work. 01:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)

References

"early agriculture"

I didn't like the use of the word "early" in the second paragraph. Since the phrase is lifted from Dark Emu (book) I have raised my concerns at Talk:Dark Emu (book)#early agriculture. The text should be fixed there first, then redone here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. See Talk:Dark Emu (book)#early agriculture for details. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Mallacoota

For reasons many would be able to guess, I was drawn today to the above article. It describes Bruce Pascoe (a local resident) in its Notable people section as an "Indigenous Australian author". I'm perfectly happy with that description, but just felt I should draw the attention of other editors to the existence of another mention of his ancestry, in case we ever feel the need to improve it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this " is an Australian writer of literary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays and children's literature. He is of mixed Cornish, Bunurong, Yuin, and Aboriginal Tasmanian (Palawa) heritage" is too clunky and should be rephrased to "is an Aboriginal Australian writer of literary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays and children's literature." or "is an Indigenous Australian writer of literary fiction, non-fiction, poetry, essays and children's literature." A quick google search brings up dozens (possibly hundreds, I got tired of scrawling through) of citations to back either description (Aboriginal seems a more common/accepted descriptor for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples). Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That shorter form is less clunky, I agree, and am happy for it to be inserted in place of the present form. My first preference is still to drop the second sentence completely and leave the heritage/ancestry out of the lead completely (and just describe him as Australian, with details in the body). --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be better also. But it would be remiss to leave his Aboriginality out of the lede completely, all of his work focuses on Aboriginal history and culture, it matters. Bacondrum (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's where we differ - I think the work should be able to stand on its own, regardless of the ethnic heritage of whoever did it. I accept I have the minority view. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree it should be able to stand on it's own, but we have made race a massive issue since the first fleet. Bacondrum (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Identity section

I have just added a bit more content out of Convincing Ground about his (and others') Aboriginal roots, and created a new separate section on Identity. Is everyone happy with this, or are there other suggestions? I would like to move ahead with a bit of wordsmithing here (on the talk page) about the challenge to his identity, which I think could easily be expressed in a sentence or two and added to the Identity section. I'll have a go myself later, but if anyone wants to put forward a first draft, please do! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. I'm still really hesitant to add the challenge to his identity unless it is reported more widely (ie non-participants in the cuture wars argy-bargy), I feel the claims are spurious and libelous at best. Having said that I'm open to having my mind changed if it was worded carefully. Bacondrum (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think if we have However in the wider community, Pascoe’s identification as Aboriginal is accepted, then we should acknowledge that there are a few (loud) voices that dissent. That sentence seems to be responding to something that isn't in this article at present. There should be no libel issue (against Pascoe OR Bolt) for a sentence along the lines of "Some commentators have publicly questioned Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry", cited to an article in a major newspaper that does exactly that. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Undue. Too vague, we need to attribute that opinion to someone and as it stands if we attribute that opinion we will be relying on a deranged hatched job - Dark Emu Exposed - this unhinged page, dedicated to essentially stalking Pascoe, is a shameless effort and the antithesis of an RS. If the claims come from somewhere else I'd reconsider. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The votes above were in favour of mention - the main reason that led me to adding more and addressing the issue in a separate section. (No time now but will try to work on suggested wording later today.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Partially agree. We definitely need to attribute in the body any opinions that question Pascoe's identity. Saying "Some commentators" is way to wishy washy, as there are always "some commentators" who say pretty much anything on the internet. As previously discussed, The Saturday Paper does a good job of discussing the issue, and is a reliable source we can follow. --Rob (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, consensus is against me on this, I wont oppose as long as it's appropriately attributed - I agree The Saturday Paper is a good source for this claim as they're clearly not running a hatchet job on Pascoe. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, just to let you know that I'm about to start work on a draft, which I'll add below. I can see already that trying to keep it compact is going to be a problem, so perhaps I'll just write a longer version to start with and others can help shape it... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI (almost left speechless so will just leave this here for now). I've just encountered this in my Twitter feed... AFP investigation Josephine Cashman asks AFP to investigate. "Peter Dutton refers matter of Bruce Pascoe identity to the Australian Federal Police for an investigation of alleged “dishonesty offences”. " (The Australian, 10 Jan - visible to me via Twitter but not in Firefox, so I screenshot it). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Other sources: SBS, The Guardian, The Age. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I chose the vague "some commentators" only because it seemed that the most vocal people here objected to naming Andrew Bolt. It seems that Josephine Cashman and Peter Dutton have now elevated "the question" to be broadly-enough reported that it now has to be mentioned in this article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Working draft (to be integrated with Identity section)

Columnist Andrew Bolt and the magazine Quadrant have challenged Pascoe's identification as Aboriginal, but Pascoe has explored this identity at length in Convincing Ground, explaining that family trees do not always tell the whole story. In an article in the Griffith Review in 2012 titled "Andrew Bolt's Disappointment" (written some time after Bolt had been found to have racially vilified other “light-skinned” Aboriginal people under Section 18c of the Race Discrimination Act), Pascoe responds playfully, suggesting that he and Bolt could have a "good yarn" together, without rancour, because "I think it's reasonable for Australia to know if people of pale skin identifying as Aborigines are fair dinkum". He adopts a more serious tone when explaining how and why his Aboriginal ancestry – and that of many others – has been buried. Pascoe says that the explanation would be long and involved, and has (in a different forum) acknowledged the “schizophrenic” nature of ­having both Indigenous and non-Indigenous ancestry and choosing one over the other.

While Indigenous lawyer Josephine Cashman used Twitter to question Pascoe's ancestry based on the fact that her Yuin ex-partner had not heard of him, other Yuin people responded that one person's word was not incontrovertible evidence. Academic Marcia Langton and Aboriginal elder and Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt supported Pascoe, which led to verbal abuse of and threats to his staff. This issue of Aboriginal identity can be controversial for some.

In December 2019 Cashman wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, alleging that Pascoe had benefited financially from falsely claiming to be Indigenous. Dutton referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on 24 December. The AFP confirmed that it had received the request and was handling it in accordance with standard AFP protocols. Wyatt stated that he did not think it appropriate for Cashman to have requested such an investigation.

References

Commentary and suggestions

Cashman is now widely reported to have gone further than Twitter. Should we now add something like:

Cashman wrote to Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton in December 2019 alleging that Pascoe had benefited financially from falsely claiming to be indigenous. Dutton referred the matter to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on Christmas Eve. The AFP confirmed that it had received the request and was handling it in accordance with standard AFP protocols. Ken Wyatt, the Minister for Indigenous Australians stated that he did not believe it was appropriate for Cashman to have requested such an investigation.

The Weekend Australian article doesn't mention the Wyatt comment - I think I used the Guardian, but The Age would also do the job. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, ScottDavis. I just fixed an error in my own sentence above, and then added a slightly revised version of your suggestion to the draft, and created this section for discussion about the draft (thinking we may as well all edit the draft above and/or at least keep it in one spot for discussion as it is built, or could end up with another very long higgledy-piggledy section here?). Back later sometime to add citations, etc., if someone else doesn't get there first (feel free, everyone!). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations added. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is a sufficiently neutral draft and I'd support using it in the article. I was originally opposed to mentioning this but it has indeed escalated. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I'm a little worried about making the whole section too long, so thinking about perhaps trimming the earlier paragraphs(?), but this seems to be a fair summary. I would also guard against carrying on with a blow-by-blow series of commentary and updates in future weeks or months, but try to stick to only the most significant events in how this unfolds. In the meantime, this op-ed (which I'm not suggesting using as a citation here) has reminded me that I wanted to do some more work on the article someone created a couple of months ago, on Aboriginal Australian identity - which perhaps could include reference to this little saga at some point (not now - I want to see if I can add something of value to the rest of the article first). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Top notch work as always, Laterthanyouthink. I concur with SportingFlyer, this draft is sufficiently neutral and the coverage has expanded enough to make it due. Bacondrum (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bacondrum. I have now added the above, with minor tweaks, to the Identity section, with a bit of minor trimming of what was there. It still looks a tad long, but I suppose that people looking at WP (the traffic report is quite interesting!] after reading the news may need a bit of the background. I'll leave it to others to review and edit further. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We seem to have sources that say the referral occurred on "24 December" (NITV) and "Christmas Eve" (The Guardian). Mitch Ames is correct that it had nothing to do with Christmas, but many Australians (at least) will assume there is a delay in processing through the period from the weekend before Christmas into January. "Christmas Eve" makes it clearer (to me) that a quick acceptance or rejection is less likely. We have no reference for how long the AFP's normal "standard protocols" take, so we cannot comment on whether there is any extended delay due to the holiday period. I'm not fussed either way. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• The two dates are the same yes? The question's obvious, but we should always strive to use the actual date as that will be more helpful to readers, especially if anyone translates the page. SportingFlyer T·C 12:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Some news today - the chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania - an official elected aboriginal body from the state where Pascoe claims ancestry - has said he should "stop claiming indigenous ancestry and that "Professor Pascoe’s claims to indigenous heritage had been rejected by Aboriginal people in three states and he had failed to demonstrate any First Nation ancestry." I added it to the article as it is important commentary from a premier body and is uncontentious. The past few weeks have seen a substantial escalation in claims of fraud against Pascoe, including being referred to police by a federal government minister, and now a separate premier Aboriginal body weighing in. As such I think we should start working toward making the article less of a hagiography regarding ancestry and take a more neutral tone, using such terms as "claims to" rather than stating outright that he is. I realize this is contentious so I'm not doing this without consensus. Phil153 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

How many wives?

A diversion from the dominant discussion for a moment.

The infobox shows "Spouse Lyn Harwood", but the text says he separated from his wife in 1982 and started a publishing company with a friend, then a few sentences later says he ran it "...with his wife, Lyn Harwood." Does anyone know (or better still, have a reference for) whether it was a temporary separation, or if he divorced an unnamed first wife then married Harwood soon after? None of the current references seem to mention a divorce, name a wife before 1982, identify Harwood as a second wife, give a year or duration of marriage etc. to indicate clearly whether Harwood has been the only wife. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't see a section title like this often! You're right, original source only says that Pascoe married after graduating from college and separated the year prior (1982). The Australian says that he and Harwood separated in 2017 after 35 years together, a split Pascoe attributes to his many absences and his late-life mission to pursue farming. 35 years ago means around 1982. In all likelihood, this means that Harwood is his second wife. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)