Wikipedia

Talk:Bruce Pascoe/Archive 3

< Talk:Bruce Pascoe
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mitch Ames in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2021
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RfC

Latest comment: 4 years ago133 comments23 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved
From reading this discussion, it is clear a decision was reached, one of the participants asked if the discussion should be closed, & no further activity has transpired since then. No further input on the matter is needed from anyone -- not even closing Admins. -- llywrch (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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:

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.[1][2][3]" (The first two citations are written by highly-qualified and award-winning academics.)

References

  1. ^ Muller, Denis (19 June 2017). "Mixed media: how Australia's newspapers became locked in a war of left versus right". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 8 August 2018. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
  2. ^ Simons, Margaret (June 2014). "The decline of the 'Australian'". The Monthly. Archived from the original on 7 July 2018. Retrieved 1 August 2018.
  3. ^ Buckell, Jim (7 December 2015). "Ideology runs rampant at Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 8 August 2018. Retrieved 8 August 2018.

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:
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.
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:

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)
  • Even later to the party. For the lede I prefer the suggestion mentioned above "Bruce Pascoe is an Australian writer with Aboriginal heritage." A reader who would read in the lede that he is an Aboriginal Australian writer would expect he has been an Aboriginal for all of his life and that is not the case. About the dispute, I would mention it, but much shorter. I haven't added myself to the vote lists above, as this is clearly an attempt to find a reasonable compromise. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: You will find lots of comments above and below against your reasoning that Pascoe became Aboriginal in later life. --Scott Davis Talk 02:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Clearly, if he is Aboriginal now, he has been Aboriginal all his life. Any other view is nonsensical. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • became is an inaccurate expression, I should have said identified as . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the dispute as part of the identity section can be much shorter, but it can become a smaller proportion of the article by expanding other areas. It's not clear in the article at present, but I get the impression that he identified as Koori (does that term cover all of groups he claims, including Tasmanian?) before he became a significant author. We have cited that he fully identified as Koori by the age of 40, which means no later than 1987. Most of his bibliography is later than that, so as an author he has predominantly (if not entirely) identified as Koori. I'm happy to drop "Aboriginal" completely from the lead, but see no reason to try to phrase it that he has Aboriginal heritage without saying he is Aboriginal. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
"Koori" is an identifier that began to be commonly used in the latter part of the 20th century to describe Aboriginal people from Victoria and southern NSW, both by themselves about themselves, and by others trying to be sensitive to such self-identification. I have never seen it used to describe Tasmanians. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (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)
From what I've just read on WP:RFCEND, anyone can close this if we've reached consensus, even involved editors. But also (if I understand correctly), it expires after a month and a bot removes the rfc tag anyway. So, unless someone comments otherwise, I think that we can regard this as closed now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

His mother ...

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Was Bruce Pascoe's mother actually Gloria Pascoe, who happens to have a Wikipedia article because she won a Paralympic medal, as noted in Andrew Bolt's timeline? (Yes, I'm quite aware of who Bolt is and the nature of his writings about Pascoe). I was looking into categorising Aussie blind Paralympians when I came across this quandry. If the answer to my question is yes, Gloria's article needs updating based on that. Bruce's AustLit profile doesn't list a book called Light in the Dark, which leads me to wonder if Gloria's son was a different Bruce Pascoe. I've been unable to find anything to prove this one way or the other. Please ping me if you reply ... I don't want to watchlist this article because of its controversial nature. Graham87 15:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Graham87: The Google Books description of the Gloria Pascoe book suggests that you are correct: Bruce Pascoe was born in 1947 in Melbourne, Australia. He is an Indigenous writer. His latest books include Fog a Dox (winner of the Prime Minister's Literary Awards in 2013), Convincing Ground, Dark Emu, and Mrs Whitlam. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
@Graham87: - I would agree that a link looks very likely. The Trove entry for Light in the Dark says the book was published by Pascoe Publishing at Gipsy Bay, Vic. That's the name of the publishing company Bruce Pascoe runs (ran?). Gipsy Bay doesn't seem to exist, but Bruce lives at Gipsy Point near Mallacoota. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
PS: Gloria's article doesn't give a date of death. Is she really still around at 101? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
According to Bolt, "his mother, Gloria, ... died six years earlier [than 2010"]. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Not the world's greatest source on these matters, but he may well be right on that fact on this occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I also emailed Aussiesportlibrarian, the creator of Gloria's article, and he pointed me to this index of Australian death notices; if you put "Gloria Pascoe" in the search box, it comes up with death notices from March 2004, which FWIW matches this and this. I'll probably do some more digging after my watchlist check, but feel free to edit the article in the meantime. Graham87 02:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I did some more digging in web archives and other places, in all the blindness websites I could think of plus family notices searches like this – I used October per the "Dark Emu exposed" site and also tried searching for the entire year 1947 – but I didn't have any luck. I've gone and bitten the bullet and used the sources we do have to connect the articles about Bruce and his mother together. As I said in the edit summary, I feel really bad about using the Andrew Bolt ref but I don't think we have any other choice for now ; I do like Wikipedia articles to be well-connected and not self-contradictory. Aussiesportlibrarian updated Gloria's article to note her death ... I've done the rest of the work there. I hope Bruce confirms the link in an interview sooner or later; that would be a far better source for this info. Graham87 12:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work Graham87, it does appear that Gloria is his mother, and you are clearly editing here with the best of intentions. But, Bolt cannot be used to cite anything. Bolt is a commentator, not a reporter - he gives his audience his opinion. And his commentary has been hyper partisan and consistently dodgy over many years. His opinions have seen him take the role of a major player in historical denialism relating to the stolen generation, he is a climate change denier. He has repeatedly ended up in court over dishonest claims, fined for aggravated compensatory damages, punitive damages, charged with breaching the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and lost one particular defamation case where claims made in his column were described by a judge as "dishonest and misleading...at best, grossly careless". He is often wantonly antagonistic with those whom he disagrees and sycophantic with his fellow conservatives (did anyone see the recent Pell interview? Endlessly begging the question...I've never before witnessed such blatant sycophancy in the media - Annabel Crabb would have blushed.). Bolt recently scoffed at corona virus saying “I’m always suspicious, when the media pushes panic...I think a lot of people have a vested interest in beating this up...I am pretty sure that a real, deadly pandemic would look a lot more deadly than this...There is one more protection I think you should consider: how about building up some resistance to the emergence of panic about the bushfires, about global worming, about this coronavirus, about almost anything these days. Do you know how bad panic is for your health?” before having to do some serious back peddling. I've left the claim there, but Bolt is the antithesis of a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: Wow, I knew Bolt was bad, but not *that* bad. Maybe the Google Books description would be a better ref then, after all that? Or does somebody have access to the death notice in the Herald Sun? (I've asked Aussiesportslibrarian, but haven't gotten a reply yet ... I guess I could get in touch with the State Library of Victoria if need be). It's just that ... Google Books descriptions are the kind of sources that tend to be removed by automated/semiautomated editing from time to time, like Amazon links. Also, pings don't work after the fact; at the moment I'm monitoring this discussion by checking my contribs every now and then. Graham87 03:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I reckon I've found a source. It at least makes it clear she had a son called Bruce Pascoe and that Bruce Pascoe was co author of her biography. [25] Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that ... that's just a copy of the Wikipedia biography. The Australian Paralympic History Project and the Wikipedia project to write these articles are intrinsically interlinked. Graham87 01:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure the connection is factually true. But, I think on principal, we should just exclude this connection (don't name mom). It seems the ultimate source of the connection is Bruce himself, but we don't seem to have a clear/current/official Bruce Pascoe source to confirm this, given his website is down, and archive's of it don't mention his mother (that I can see). Also, I think its interesting there are numerous highly reliable sources, where Bruce discusses his parents, yet the parents aren't named in any of them. For example, search "Bruce Pascoe Guardian Gloria" and you get nothing in the Guardian with "Gloria". It's entirely possible, that after getting negative attention of his family background, that he might not want to be naming them anymore. I don't know. But, I think we can treat this minor detail the same way we treat other personal details of people that aren't super famous, like an exact birthday, which we wouldn't publish just because the person happened to disclose a couple times in the past. --Rob (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, this is a BLP violation. Immediately, after naming the parents, we say they hid their family's ancestry. There is no reliable source that names his parents and says they did this. --Rob (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
He's mentioned his dad by name twice in interviews that I've found (the second link will probably require registration/other jiggery-pokery to access). It's not a BLP violation because both of his parents are long dead. I too find it curious that he hasn't mention his mother in interviews, despite co-writing a biography of her, but your explanation makes sense and is aloong the lines of what I was thinking. Graham87 10:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Gloria Pascoe article says that this Bruce is her son. If it violates WP:BLP to say here that she is his mother, then it would also violate it there to say he is her son. My opinion would be to keep both, assuming it is confirmed. The clearest indication I have found is an unreliable reference that asserts that it is in her book: “Bruce discovered there was an Aboriginal connection in the family, after the death of his father (in 1989)”. Gloria Pascoe (Bruce’s mother), from “Gloria – Light In The Dark” - if we can confirm that her book says that, then I think it meets the reliability requirement to be included.[26] --Scott Davis Talk 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Graham87 was right in correcting me, there's technically not a BLP issue, since the parents are passed. Also, I concede the fact is pretty much established. I frankly think it's bad form to name somebody's mom when a) it's utterly insignificant to the article and b) the son is clearly not naming her anymore, despite repeatedly discussing his family, c) this is not a famous family. This whole thread smacks of to much detective work on a non-celebrity (very notable person, but not a movie star). In the version prior to my edit, we're tying separate pieces of info (names of parents, and what they did/didn't tell him), and putting them together. If we do re-add the parents name, we need to fix the subsequent sentence: "He grew up in a poor working-class family, who did not tell him the details of his heritage." We should have an independent (e.g. not Bruce Pascoe himself) source asserting this, if we're going to say it, as fact. Anyhow, after thinking more about this, I see there isn't really any clear policy to prevent inclusion, and I won't fight, or revert a re-inclusion. --Rob (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I asked the State Library of Victoria ... and while they currently don't have access to the physical Herald Sun due to current events, I was pointed to this death notice for Gloria's grandmother from 1952 (search for "Pascoe"). As for independent sourcing that Bruce's parents hid his heritage from him, I doubt that would exist ... the only person who could possibly know that is Bruce himself, or perhaps his family. I guess it could be softened by saying "He said that his parents hid his heritage, shifting the burden from his family to him.
The only reason I advocate mentioning the name of his mother (and by extension his father) is for the wikilink, so Wikipedia articles can be properly connected together. It's kinda an obsession of mine ... the other cases where I've done this haven't had anywhere near as much baggage attached to them (e.g. Stanley Lane-Poole, Bill Roycroft, and Jan Cameron. As I'm not a regular editor on this article I don't think it's my place to put the info back myself, however, without strong consensus here. Graham87 06:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to wikilink his mother, as it’s reasonably established and not particularly controversial (who his mother is, not whether his ancestry was hidden from him). The suggested in-text attribution for the heritage statement seems reasonable too. — MarkH21talk 06:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Minor correction to the comment a few above - the death notice is for Alf's grandmother, not Gloria's. Either way, great-gran of Jenifer and Bruce. On the other slant, even Bruce can't be authoritative on whether his parents hid his heritage, or simply didn't mention it as it never came up in conversation. It may be that his mother'a autobiography indicates that he was aware of it before she died, but after her husband had died. --Scott Davis Talk 13:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I was mistaken re the death notice. I checked out the source for the claim about Bruce's parents not telling him all the information about his heritage, and I don't think one can really conclude anything about what they said from that source. I therefore removed that part from the article and put back his parents' names, and also merged the two paragraphs toghether. Graham87 12:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 20 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • What I think should be changed: Section on "Dark Emu (2014)"
  • Why it should be changed: Recent anthropological scholarship has cast doubt on the scope of some of Pascoe's claims in "Dark Emu", particularly those invoking towns and agriculture.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): [1]


Stringybark (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Keen, Ian (2021). "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture". Anthropological Forum. Retrieved 27 February 2021.

@Stringybark: Per item 6 in the instructions for submitters, please Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (No prejudice against re-requesting with specific wording changes.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Under "Personal Life", change "Black Seed Foods" to "Black Duck Foods" - see https://www.facebook.com/blackduckfoods/ Magenta-meerkat (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, you'll need to find a reliable secondary source for that claim. Bacondrum 00:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Done, with references other than Facebook. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The official University of Melbourne pages about Bruce Pascoe and his work as an Enterprise professor is https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/185335-bruce-pascoe

I suggest that the references to his role as "Enterprise Professor in Indigenous Agriculture" be linked to the official University of Melbourne page above that contains up to date details of his research and scholarly activitites. There are two references that could be changed: - Introductory paragraph - Career - "Later Work and Other roles" section

Thank you. Mfallu (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/185335-bruce-pascoe is already listed as a reference - ref number 24 on the current version of the article. I don't think it's like to be challenged, so per MOS:LEADCITE there's no need to include the cite in the lead section as well. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bruce_Pascoe/Archive_3&oldid=1173923009"