Talk:Bruce Pascoe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

"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..." Yes, the haters are becoming scared and desperate. This is nonsensical, often racist stuff. Why do you need to prove he is not what he believes he is? Could you absolutely prove every element of your ancestry going back eight generations? Could everyone you know do so? Were you part of a stolen generation making ancestry difficult to prove? Are you part of a people who deliberately hid their Aboriginality for generations for fear of racist mistreatment, such as is happening to Pascoe today? I am becoming depressed by the nasty behaviour of people who don't want what a book someone has written to be true. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• A quick search on my end shows these news sources are coming only from the Australian and the Herald Sun, which are the two major publications which have taken an firm opinion on discrediting Pascoe. I don't see any reason that we should jump to any conclusions here, as the problem with "claims to" is "claims to" isn't necessarily neutral either. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine with addition of recent material. As for "claims to" - as per WP:CLAIM "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability" Leave as is for now, the accusations of news corp culture warriors are not ground for questioning his ancestry in Wikipedia's voice. Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

On another note: Dutton's referral to the AFP has been dropped by the AFP, pretty much saying "no Commonwealth offences have been identified". Do we keep this political stunt in the article? With nothing coming of it I reckon it's not noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just did a news search for that as well, and only the Herald Sun is reporting that so far. I would have expected it to be more broadly reported. SportingFlyer T·C 09:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just because the assigned investigating officer declines to continue doesn't mean much and doesn't imply it's a political stunt. I vote for removing it as in the long term (encyclopedia view) it becomes not noteworthy as nothing came of it. I'm also fine with keeping it and noting the investigating officer found nothing of interest. But the section is getting long already so I vote remove. Phil153 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't vote here. We seek consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The ABC is also reporting that the AFP have dismissed the allegation: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-24/bruce-pascoe-aboriginality-complaint-finalised-by-afp/11896612 60.231.59.151 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree the whole Identity section is becoming unwieldy, but I reject the complete removal of the cited paragraph about the letter to the Minister and referral to the AFP. There was a flow from Cashman on Twitter through that to Pascoe's assigning a motive for the allegations then Mansell's statement. The NITV reference looks out of place if the text doesn't otherwise mention the AFP. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS The Cashman story is a total and utter non event, at best - a cheap political stunt at worst. Cashman's husband doesn't know Pascoe? Who cares? A referral to the AFP was almost immediately dismissed as of no consequence. This section is already unwieldy, doesn't need the details of minor news stories that went absolutely nowhere. Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You have again removed whole paragraphs before seeking agreement here or making sure what is left is complete and flows. Pascoe identifies with three indigenous groups. People who purport to represent each one of those have challenged those connections. All three should be discussed in the identity section. I had already shortened the Cashman part a bit, and we might be able to shorten it more, but to completely drop analysis of one of those three is inbalanced, particularly since that seems to be the one with the most coverage. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "People who purport to represent each one of those have challenged those connections". We don't use language like "claims to" or "purports to" as per WP:CLAIM...Do they represent the relevant groups of not?? Michael Mansell? Yes, he is the chairman of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, he represents the relevant group - due. Marcia Langton? Yep, obviously an expert and respected figure in the field, chair of Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne among many other notable positions and achievements - due. Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council? Obviously due. Lawyer Josephine Cashman? Not so much...her husband doesn't know Pascoe? And she made complaint that was taken to the AFP, that the AFP almost immediately dismissed as a non-event - Not due. We are not here to report the news, an AFP referral that goes absolutely nowhere and someones husband not knowing someone is the definition of undue. If charges were laid or Cashman was the head of the relevant Aboriginal group, that'd be different. You speak of no consensus to remove, where's the consensus to including this content? This content in the current context is beginning to read like a grab bag of Pascoes sins. Bacondrum (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wont object to mentioning the referral to give context, but not a whole paragraph, let alone two. Nothing came of the event, it's only due in a very limited context. Bacondrum (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I had already cut it from three paragraphs to two. AFP's "dismissal" was more in the sense of "not our problem" than "We have determined his claims are true" (or that hers were not). Cashman's claims have been widely reported, so it is worth including, and if we want to try to devalue her opinion compared to Langton or Cruse it takes more text than giving her equal weight to Mansell or Briggs.

"Cashman's claims have been widely reported, so it is worth including..." Cashman's claims are primarily for political purposes. She is saying precisely what someone from her political positions would be expected to say by her supporters, and is simply pandering to them. It is not our job to help her play that game. I detest this desire to use the comments of irrelevant people to discredit someone in a BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have put Cashman back, but trimmed and rearranged a bit more. I've started her own article (there were other red links) based on the big footnote about her, and will try to expand on that to provide balance there. Mansell seems to be arguing that Pascoe's identity is not a thing about left/right politics. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Wyatt's comments

Probably not appropriate to include in this article, but a sign of the seriousness of the issue, related to Aboriginal identity, fyi: Ken Wyatt may ask for resignations from Indigenous body after Bruce Pascoe controversy. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It won't go anywhere. My impression is that Wyatt is way out of his depth. But I'm happy to watch. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Laterthanyouthink for the interesting read. I generally agree with the gist of what is being said by some Aboriginal commentators - that this focus on Aboriginal Identity by non Aboriginal people is steeped in a culture of profound racism. These claims are for a BLP and relate to a highly contentious issue that must be handled with upmost care. Bacondrum (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we can only wait and see, HiLo48. It's going to cause a few ripples in the Indigenous voice to government group, in any case. And I tend to agree on the whole, Bacondrum. When I eventually get back to the Aboriginal identity article I might cite this as an example. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Groups like that advisory body are not required to always speak with a unanimous voice. My experience working with Aboriginal people tells me that a unanimous opinion would be the last thing I would expect to hear on almost anything. "White" media, and particularly the right wing commentator part of it, often makes the mistake of expecting Aboriginal people to all think the same way. Not surprisingly, they don't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why should all Aboriginal people speak with one voice? "White" Australians don't all think alike - even the "right wing" part has several political parties that don't agree with each other - and (mostly) even less with the left. There are 200+ Aboriginal groups - that's more than the number of HoR MPs. I doubt many of those MPs can claim to have 100% agreement within their electorate on anything substantive, regardless of which side they are on.

I think that Wyatt's point is that the group is established to identify a common way forward. It doesn't bode well for its aims if after only one meeting one of the members is publicly expressing a controversial personal opinion and being equally publicly smacked down by a co-chair. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Several others have just pointed out how unlikely for such a group to have unanimous views. and you say such a situation doesn't bode well. In that case, the human race has a sad looking future. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the members having different views - if they all thought identically, only one would be needed. It wasn't the range of views that I said didn't bode well, it was that they chose to express them through Twitter, press releases, appealing to a different minister etc rather than discussing it within the group first. Even appeals court judges disagree sometimes, but they don't do it through the media, they do it through a properly drafted minority report after the issues have been discussed internally. If Cashman is pushed out of that group, it won't be because she has a different opinion, it will be because she refused to be part of the team. Anyway, there is now a Josephine Cashman article so her background doesn't need as much detail here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

New article proposal?

Pascoe and his book Dark Emu, so hated by the Bolt, Cashman, Murdoch and friends, are stable subjects. This article should therefore also be stable. What is not stable is the ongoing, outrageous, bigoted, politically motivated, race hate encouraging, dishonest claims from Pascoe's critics. We simply must not continue adding to this article every time Pascoe's critics invent some new nonsense, and then add the refutation, and then add the next bullshit, and the next refutation, and so on. It would eventually overwhelm the useful content in the article. I propose a new article, completely independent of this one, called Idiotic criticisms of Bruce Pascoe and Dark Emu, with absolutely nothing about that nonsense in this article. OK, the article title might need some work, but otherwise this is a completely serious suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were to support that proposal (and apart from the title, I'm not violently opposed to it - perhaps "Ethnic background of Bruce Pascoe" - but I think that gives more air to the fire than it deserves), I would seek to remove the word "Aboriginal" from the first sentence, and any other statements about his ancestry/heritage/ethnic group more specific than "Australian". It is no more our place to say he is Yuin than it is Cashman's to say he is not, and all of the references that say he is trace back to "Pascoe says he is, and I have no reason to doubt him". That doesn't mean we can't still say he has won awards that would only be awarded to Indigenous/Aboriginal people, just that if we intend to pretend (in this article) that the questions haven't been raised, then we have to not implicitly take his side. At the moment, an anonymous Google search for Bruce Pascoe has items about that issue first. Incidentally, criticisms of Dark Emu are separate from questions about Pascoe's Aboriginal status. The book is apparently referenced to published and public sources, so could have been written by anyone with the inclination to do so. I think that if there is a single dimension line, we are both on the same "side", just that I'm not as far along it as you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have several concerns with what you have written there, but I shall limit it to an observation that you see "sides" where I don't. All I see is a simple, non-controversial and relatively unimportant claim by someone, and a massive amount of nasty, dishonest frothing at the mouth by some race hate fomenting extremists. The latter group are good at gaining publicity (hence the Google hits), but only in places that should not be seen as reliable sources for such matters in Wikipedia. There is simply nothing ethical about the behaviour of that group, and it must not be allowed to sully the Bruce Pascoe article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of Aboriginality questions

Does the article presently reflect the timeline properly? Or have we lost key points in the process of trimming and challenging?

• In his 30s Pascoe started questioning his ancestry, and identified himself as Koori with ancestors from three areas by the tie he was 40
• 2007 Convincing Ground explores reasons why public records and blood might differ
• 2012 Bolt and Quadrant challenge, and Pascoe responds through the Griffith Review
• Nov 2019 Cashman used Twitter, continued through appeal to Dutton in December and AFP response in January
• Mansell issued a 3-page statement in January (but we don't reference it directly)

We seem to be missing any question or rebuttal from Bunurong/Boonwurrung until a 19 Jan reference, and no earlier comments from Mansell. I thought there had been some in earlier drafts or talk? Was Cashman's Tweet the first "challenge" since Bolt in 2012?

My motivation is to make sure we have the key facts of the story. If there was something/someone before Cashman, I'd try to include that instead of the first two or three sentences of her paragraph (Twitter and maybe Wyatt's response). The purpose in this page of the Twitter sentences is to show that the letter to Dutton was an escalation, not a new start. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I still reckon we're giving Cashman tweet, her husbands objection and AFP non-event far too much weight. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I still reckon we're giving this whole issue too much attention, which is precisely what those who want to discredit Pascoe want us to do. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I concur. Considering the limited reporting and the sources of many accusation I'd venture to say that nearly half this section is undue. Bacondrum (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would go further. There is actually no news. Some of the usual suspects, specialists at fomenting and encouraging racial hatred, behaved in their completely predictable way, and we here at Wikipedia are supporting their goal by giving them publicity. We could just have a sentence saying "Bolt, the Murdoch media and Quadrant said the kinds of dishonest, ugly things they always say." HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fence-sitting on this one. Yes, on one hand, the hullabaloo is ridiculous, but on the other hand, people coming to Wikipedia for a balanced view and wanting to know details are properly informed and have further sources to look at via the citations. Since the story has become more drawn out, perhaps the section could probably do with a bit of minor trimming here and there, but I wouldn't remove mention of the major players. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the Yolngu have now jumped on the bandwagon as well. Thus far, it's only reported by the Herald Sun and Bolt, who seem to be denigrated sources on this article. They are also calling for the replacement of Wyatt and calling Cashman their selected spokesperson.--Scott Davis ^Talk 06:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's where this gets silly again. I have met many Yolngu people. They are very independent thinking people, and it's almost impossible to get a uniform view from them on anything. If this news is from Bolt/The Hun, we really should ignore it. It's actually NOT news at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Further on the Yolngu matter, Bolt is lying, again - Tribal Chief says he did not author a letter attributed to him...by...Bolt. We cannot use Bolt as a source. Personally, I don't believe we should even mention him. If we include every bullshit claim he makes, it would fill the article. Best we include nothing from him. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink: "...people coming to Wikipedia for a balanced view" ...won't get it if we quote Bolt or anyone else from that stable. This is like climate denialists demanding that a balanced view of climate change requires 50% of coverage to nutters. We don't do that here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(Added after edit conflict - only re Scott's post) I was able to look at the first one, but not the second. The letter he has reproduced is by a Yolngu man who says he's leader of the Waramiri clan of Yolngu, who "selected Cashman for a leadership role". I suspect that the letter was solicited by Bolt or the HS, and includes criticisms of what he calls Pascoe's theories (Dark Emu). As both pieces are by Bolt, and the first is represented as a blog and full of his vile opinions, I'd ignore both at this point. (Bolt is more of the problem than Herald Sun, I think - he is a columnist, not a serious journalist.) Also, Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48 Yes, I share your opinion of Bolt, but the point is that many people read his nonsense, or may have heard about the issue via other means. We cannot avoid mentioning him if the story is to be told.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Bolt has no credibility. He makes his living by being a public bigot and liar. We should not help him do that. We CAN and MUST ignore him. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Bolt is hardly an independent source in this article, given his role in all of this. I wouldn't support adding anything written by Bolt to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There's clearly going to be more to come on this one, regardless of who is telling which parts of the truth. If I type what I am thinking, I'd probably be crossing the BLP line, so I'll just say that some of it would be about Cashman. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You were right, ScottDavis - Cashman sacked. (As above, NITV article yesterday.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Now Bolt has been shown to be guilty of some pretty stupid plagiarism - Letter revealed to contain paragraphs lifted from academic papers and websites. Some of the letter he claimed was from the Yolngu leader was from a paper published in the USA 25 years ago. Surely this time he has gone just a little too far. (Except that this news will never be published by Murdoch.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This should all probably should be on Bolt's page instead of here, if it's placed anywhere. SportingFlyer T·C 08:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Bolt's page. And not here, so long as all his allegations against Pascoe disappear too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To be fair/accurate, it may be Cashman who was guilty of plagiarism, not Bolt. See Josephine Cashman and its references. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair comment. Is Bolt actually an innocent victim here? Was Cashman trying to embarrass Bolt? Obviously, at a minimum, he didn't check the veracity of the document. Oh what a tangled web..... HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added a Pascoe subsection to the Controversies part of the Bolt article. Feel free to improve it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Bibliography and Works sections

It's a bit problematical having both of these sections (see MOS:WORKS). Neither is a complete list of his works, and I think those with annotations might be better moved back into chronological order within the Career section, to avoid confusion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I admit I hadn't noticed the Works section when I inserted the Bibliography header (which was really a split of Career, not a new section at all). I'm not familiar enough with author articles to know how it's usually handled when they have written lots of things, and the article only has expanded details of a few. The UTS reference (currently ref#2) provides a list of publications, but doesn't easily split them into books, short stories or anything else. Is it possible/permitted by MOS to provide some expanded descriptions in the bibliography? --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ScottDavis, author articles do vary quite a bit, and there does not seem to be a prescriptive MOS, but if you look at, e.g. Ian McEwan, some of his works get a mention in the Career section, partly to illustrate progression or change of genre or topic, but also to flesh out some newsworthy items relating to the works and/or personal life. I think this is justified in the case of Pascoe as what he has written in the earlier works relates to the later questions of identity, etc., i.e. that he didn't just suddenly decide he was Aboriginal when he wrote Dark Emu. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

In the light of no further comments on this issue, I will now have a go at integrating the Bibliography section with Career again. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Identity section now the biggest! I propose halving it.

With the addition today of some more details of Cashman's stuffup, the Identity section is now the biggest in the article. That is inappropriate. Pascoe has a Wikipedia article because is an author, not because some people want to attack a minor aspect of his being. Details of the Bolt/Cashman affair are now in their respective articles. They don't need to be here. They add nothing to us knowing who and what Bruce Pascoe is. There are six paragraphs. I propose removing the final three. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's way too big. Perhaps the relevant details of the hoo-ha could be included on one or both of their articles instead. I don't agree with entirely removing any reference to Bolt and Cashman in this article though - it needs the links to those articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that he is notable as an author. Some people here seem to think it is key that he is an Aboriginal author, but deny that there has been any challenge of that status. It would be good if we had sources to be able to expand on other aspects of Bruce Pascoe. The Early life and education and Career sections hint that there is more to him, but only give the bare bones. The recent additions to the last three Identity paragraphs are probably unnecessary, but I think every paragraph says something about Pascoe, too.

1. Growing self-awareness in his thirties
2. Continued
3. Recognition that he didn't grow up Aboriginal, so doesn't fully have their experience
4. Conciliation and collaboration, rather than aggression or defensiveness
5. Pascoe said that he found the referral "hurtful"
6. he believes that the allegations that he is not Aboriginal are motivated by wanting to discredit Dark Emu

These paragraphs should be trimmed to focus on Bruce Pascoe not on the other players. I'm prepared to have another go at shortening them over the weekend, but would prefer to shorten what's there rather than again add what you might see as bloat. I don't have time to do it now, but would remove anything about someone else that doesn't immediately lead to Pascoe. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

"Some people here seem to think it is key that he is an Aboriginal author..." Who? Certainly not me. Without names, that is just provocative, pointless nonsense. With names, it would probably be ad hominem nonsense. So, will you provide names? Who? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't recall who said it in the conversations above, but I thought I proposed (or tried) removing Aboriginal and Indigenous from the first line at some stage (just leaving him as an Australian author etc) and was rebuffed quite strongly. The discussion above is too fragmented to find it in. I think I said earlier that you and I are probably "on the same side" and got told there are not two sides. Let's just focus on improving the article. It's currently rated C-class, can we improve it? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Laterthanyouthink (after edit conflict): There is now content in Andrew Bolt#Bruce Pascoe and Josephine Cashman about their respective Hoo-has. There is not presently anything in Michael Mansell (was he also involved in Bolt's court case?), Marcia Langton or Ken Wyatt, and I am uncertain if it is important enough to them to be inserted in those articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

ScottDavis, yes, I did have a quick look at the Bolt and Cashman articles. Wondered if some of the detail from this article could be moved over there instead. I don't think that Mansell was involved in the Bolt court case, but I am too tired to hunt down the details or do more on this now. Langton and Wyatt can be mentioned in the Cashman article as they're in the SAG of the Indigenous Voice (IVG), with Langton as co-chair (which reminds me - more work to be done on the IVG, after just dropping the names into the Ken Wyatt article some time ago!). I'm happy for you or others to have a go at it. The bulk really needs to be removed from this article, but the series of events (at least in outline) should be related somewhere, IMO, and it's really more about those two than anybody else, I reckon - although those points re Pascoe you mention above should be retained here somewhere. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Eatock v Bolt only names Pat Eatock. The judgment doesn't seem to have a list of the sixteen people named in the two articles, but mentions surnames including "Mansell" as the targets of some of the comments. There is a sentence in Ken Wyatt#Indigenous voice to government about Cashman's dismissal. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My simple goal with this section was to remove the latter three of the six paragraphs in the Identity section of this article. It's obviously good to consider the contents of those other articles, but discussion of that belongs at those articles, not here. Nobody seems to have a specific objection to my proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I object to simply deleting the last three paragraphs. It the heritage dispute is worth including in other articles it's certainly worth mentioning in Pascoe's, because he is the subject of the dispute. There should at least be a brief mention of the controversies, with links to the relevant sections of the other articles that have more detail. E.g.:

There have been some public repudiation of Pascoe's Aboriginal heritage, by Andrew Bolt, Quadrant magazine, Josephine Cashman and Michael Mansell.

References

(The Michael Mansell article doesn't currently mention Pascoe.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. Much better than what's there now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for minor grammatical improvement: "There has been repudiation of Pascoe's claim to (of?) Aboriginal heritage in some quarters, notably...". Also, I would like to have a bit more time on this to allow other editors to make suggestions, and to let Scott have a go as he suggested. We're all busy and attention to detail takes time. Let's make sure we get this right and nothing of importance, or sources, are lost in translation (in the other articles). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they're repudiating his heritage directly, not (just) his claim to it, so I suggest that it should be "... repudiation of Pascoe's Aboriginal heritage ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done my best (last night and tonight) on the section (I renamed it to "Aboriginal identity" as that seems to be the point). I believe that every part of what is left tells the reader something about Bruce Pascoe that would be lost by deleting more. The Pascoe section in the Bolt article and the Pascoe paragraphs in the Cashman article are both longer than the corresponding parts here, and each is written witht eh focus on that article's subject. I'm not sure that Pascoe is significant in the life of Mansell yet, and he's not mentioned there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but that section is still the largest in the article. That's not appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. Just because it is the longest section doesn't mean that is the section that should be shortened. Perhaps there need to be other sections expanded or added. If "longest section" is the sole criterion, we could put a section header half-way down it. It would be better to expand the article and add more to other areas. What was the name of the small town near Shepparton, and how long did he teach there? Australian Short Stories was published 6 times a year for 18 years and only gets a short paragraph. Has he done any notable research as a professor or writing on Aboriginal languages? It's hard to identify what isn't in an article yet, but there seems to be a lot of career material missing still. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding more good content to the article would be lovely, but it's not happening, is it? Here's my version of the how the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs could be better summarised:

Following Andrew Bolt's breach of the Racial Discrimination Act in 2011 relating to comments about fair-skinned Aboriginal people (see Eatock_v_Bolt), Pascoe wrote an article in 2012 titled "Andrew Bolt's Disappointment". It was originally published in the Griffith Review (republished in 2019 in Salt: Selected Stories and Essays). In it Pascoe suggested that he and Bolt could "have a 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 described how and why his Aboriginal ancestry – and that of many others – had been buried, and that the full explanation would be very long and involved.

Bolt and some other commentators, along with the magazine Quadrant, have made statements expressing doubt about Pascoe's Aboriginality, but all such claims have been quickly discredited.

(Refinement welcome, but no more about the critics please.) Anything more is actually about those critics, not about Pascoe. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"... all such claims have been quickly discredited", because "quickly" is subjective. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"some other commentators" fails WP:WEASEL. The critics' names (even if nothing else, except wiki-links where appropriate) are required. Also note that Josephine Cashman and Michael Mansell would not generally be described as a "commentators". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest they be described as? Point scorers? HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe them as anything, simply mention their names, e.g. Bolt, along with Josephine Cashman, Michael Mansell and the magazine Quadrant, have expressed doubt about Pascoe's Aboriginality... Mitch Ames (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I was just having another look at this and the Bolt article. I made a couple of minor mods to the Bolt article, for clarification/chronological continuity, but noticed along the way that it and this article seem to be now lacking citations which show that Bolt has been more vociferous in the recent past, and nothing to support Quadrant's involvement. I think we have to cite Herald Sun and Quadrant to support these assertions. (I quoted a bit out of the Guillatt article, which I saved some time ago when I somehow gained access, to show what Bolt had written on his blog, in the Bolt article.) I'm broadly in agreement with all of the rest. But we must ensure that all content is cited, or leave it out. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: Some bits that you appear to think are not about Pascoe include (or do you think they are repeated from elsewhere in the article?): "... "I think it's reasonable for Australia to know if people of pale skin identifying as Aborigines are fair dinkum". He described how and why his Aboriginal ancestry – and that of many others – had been buried...", "Pascoe said that he found the referral "hurtful"" (which I thought was a change (stronger) from the 2007 and earlier feelings, but couldn't find a reference that said so), "...alleging that Pascoe had benefited financially from falsely claiming to be Indigenous...no Commonwealth offences had been identified.", "... he believed that the allegations that he is not Aboriginal are motivated by wanting to discredit Dark Emu", "... his connection was through the Tasmanian family, not through Central Victorian Bunurong", "some Indigenous leaders including Marcia Langton ... and ... Ken Wyatt supported Pascoe’s Aboriginality based on his claim to community recognition". These are all points that I thought were about Pascoe and not in the article except in the paragraphs you say are not about him or not important. I think they fit the flow of the prose better where they are than to try to rewrite them into a "Pascoe's attitudes" section that does not mention other people. I'd rather expand other areas of the article than focus on trimming this bit further at present. The questions I posed earlier of missing information is not in the references we are presently using. I think the bits Laterthanyouthink said are uncited are in a reference somewhere, but I have now read this section and most of its references enough times I can't be certain where I read it any more. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with including any of that is that Pascoe's enemies will almost certainly continue to attack him in various ways for as long as he is successful in his writings and with the sales of his books. And Pascoe will probably respond. Other people will comment. Critics like Bolt actually want publicity for what they do because they have regular readers who won't worry about the criticism being discredited. They just see that as fake news and not believe it has been discredited. Every time we mention Bolt we are actually helping him maintain his regular audience. There has to be a limit to how much of this pointless to-ing and fro-ing and attention seeking by his critics we include. We cannot add it all. I think you would agree that at some point we must decide to stop including such content. I believe we've reached that point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As with other biography articles of living people involved in current events that I have become involved in, new information tends to be added as it comes to hand, then the later edits and sources lead to condensing of earlier information that can be summarised. For example a crime might be committed, then someone is charged, appears in a magistrates court. That is important at the time, but fades once they have appeared in a supreme court. They fact that they later appealed is important to track, until the appeal is upheld or dismissed etc. At the moment, I think the Aboriginal identity section of this article is condensed as much as it should be for now. If other parts of the article are expanded such that some aspects of this section become duplicates, or if further information comes to hand, it will change. I encourage you to add more new content to other parts of this article so that this section no longer dominates the word count. I think we have agreed that Pascoe's ethnicity is irrelevant to the accuracy of Dark Emu. It is therefore of note that "Pascoe said that he believed that the allegations that he is not Aboriginal are motivated by wanting to discredit Dark Emu" until such time as Bolt or Cashman (for example) say in public that is their purpose. Then Pascoe's opinion might become less important than the actual stated purpose. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(After edit conflict - written before Scott's comment above) Nah, I don't really see Wikipedia as a gateway drug for potential Bolt fans, HiLo48; I wouldn't concern myself unduly if I were you. So long as we don't mention him unnecessarily, use him as a source, and put his, um, opinions, in context, I think that most sane people can see him for what he is, and those who just read his columns or watching him on Sky... well, they'll carry on regardless. But I agree that we don't want to keep any kind of running commentary in the Pascoe article, with or without Bolt's involvement. ScottDavis, I can't do more scrutinising now but if one of us can look at a previous version, we may find a source that has dropped out in all the chopping and changing. (And thanks for the other detail above re Eatock v. Bolt, etc., btw). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

/* Dark Emu (2014) */ Dark Emu Challenged

I am new to Wikipedia and it seems I did not understand how to process an edit. I inserted the following passage:

'Pascoe's claims in Dark Emu have been challenged in a 2019 book by Peter O'Brien, 'Bitter Harvest - the illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu', published by Quadrant Books.'

which was subsequently deleted. I did not receive any feedback or suggestions as to why this happened. I guess that was because I did not use this forum initially.

I would like to request that my edit be re-instated. It is a factual comment, it is relevant, it is not controversial and it is not abusive.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it as Undue. Peter O'Brien is not a subject matter expert, the book was panned/sold poorly, poorly received by academics and published by an unreliable source of which Peter O'Brien is also a regular contributor. You have a serious conflict of interest issue which has not been declared and you should not be editing this article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to Bacondrum - I did not write 'about' my own work. I simply pointed out its existence.

If an editor is pointing out the existence of their own work then that editor is obviously writing about their own work and it's not permitted. Please see WP:PROMOTION and WP:CONFLICT. Bacondrum (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, it seems to me that this article is deficient in that it fails to mention the existence of a serious, well-researched 300 page book rebutting Pascoe's claims. It should not matter whether it is me or someone else who rectifies that omission. However, since you did not know I was the author at the time you first deleted my contribution, it is clear that the real reason you objected is because the book is published by Quadrant. Regardless of your personal ideology, Quadrant is a serious and successful publication that survives without any help from the public purse and represents the views of a significant portion of the Australian populace. However, I realize I am wasting my time here and I don't really care enough to waste any more time on this matter. I am busy putting the finishing touches to the second, expanded edition of my book which will be in production shortly. Adios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course Peter O’Brien thinks his own books are great and his publisher is great. However, Peter O'Brien is not a subject matter expert, the book was panned/sold poorly, poorly received by academics and published by what is widely considered an unreliable and highly partisan outlet. One does assume though that they have some ethical standards and would never try to surreptitiously promote an obscure book they published as encyclopaedic content, surely they’re above that? Bacondrum (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I no longer care about this article but I cannot let those slurs go unanswered. If the subject matter is history, then, yes, I concede I am not a historian. But then neither is Bruce Pascoe and it does not take a historian to check Pascoe's sources and discover that he almost uniformly distorts or misquotes them. As to my book, I again invite you to quote those critics who 'panned it'. When I registered to be a Wikipedia editor I tried to use my own name or something close to it, but I could not do so. So I chose an old nickname. When I responded to one of your emails, I made no attempt to disguise who I was, signing my response Peter O'Brien. So, no I did not try to surreptitiously promote my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Quadrant is not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia content in general. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine. In addition, it's credibility on this topic was extensively discussed on this Talk page before. It really does seem to be a waste of time to be discussing this again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

So far, no substantive response to the points I raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

And you have made no response to the archived material I linked above. Please stop wasting out time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetroAntonio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't really care enough to waste any more time on this matter" lol. Bacondrum (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Headline in the next issue of Quadrant "Is Wikipedia A Den Of Communists? Why The Government Should Ban Wikipedia And Privatise The ABC" :D Bacondrum (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt page accuracy

The related section on Andrew Bolt's page appears to lack accuracy? May need correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.106.75 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)