Talk:Bruce Pascoe

Dark Emu debunked
See, and. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also "Bruce Pascoe has welcomed the Dark Emu debate – and so should Australia" a Guardian article.. Doug Weller  talk 18:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Debunked" is an emotive, confrontational verb that is NOT used by the people who have written critiques of the book. One can only wonder about the motives of those who use it here and at the article on the book. It does not lead to sensible conversations on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely there should be some content talking about the criticism of the publication, if not using the word debunked, use some other language. Jdaly81 (talk)
 * "Debunked" is a factual statement, and an accurate one. It is only emotive to supporters of Pascoe's fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.99.252 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about Bruce Pascoe, the person, not just one of many books he has written. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Dark Emu
Hello all

I have made a few edits. I have expanded the short description of Dark Emu to make it more accurate reflection of the work. I have used more neutral language with citations for controversial elements of the book. I have added a sentence on the recent detailed critique of the book by Sutton and Walshe. I have also reduced overlinking of common words. Happy to discuss.

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There's far too much in this article about Dark Emu, which has an article of its own. This article certainly shouldn't contain criticism of a book he wrote. The content about that book probably needs to be shrunk to around one, short paragraph. I'd think about having a go at it myself, but I'm not sure if I'm ready for the battles with the racists, haters and bigots who haven't even read the book. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Dark Emu is easily his most successful book and the main reason for his public renown. The section on the book is only 246 words in an article of 1620 words (not counting lists and references). The book has inspired a full-length book response from two respected academics published by one of Australia's most reputable publishers, so a couple of short sentences on this response is both balanced and appropriate. True, there are separate articles on both books, but some repetition of key information is acceptable under policy. If you want to cut anything, I would say the overlong section of Pascoe's Aboriginal identity is ripe for a good prune. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I perceive a non-neutral, anti-Pascoe tone in your words. I see no point in continuing this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dark Emu and Pascoe himself have all been debunked by genetic experts and historians. Kargrid (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A person cannot be debunked. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact an article exists on the book is irrelevant to this article. The more notable an author's book is, the more likely it is to have its own article *and* the more coverage it likely warrant's in the author's biography.  If a book is entirely non-notable and trivial, it wouldn't warrant it's own article, and wouldn't deserve mention in the author's biography.  If you go to any famous author's (or other artist's) biography, you'll find the greatest coverage of the most famous works, which tend ot have their own articles.   Pascoe's work, and it's impact, is what's notable about him, more so than his identity, or his farm, or his volunteer fire service, or his family.  Do you think the book wasn't significant to his career?  A good article stands on its own, and doesn't assume readers will read related articles.  What rule says we can't include criticism of a book in the author's bio?  Now, maybe in this case the book's critics aren't worthy of mention if they're a insignificant minority position, or are from non-credible sources that we don't want to overweight.  But, you seem to be under the weird idea that we can't include critiques of a book in the author's biography ever.  --Rob (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mislede-ing claim
The lede begins with an assertion: "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is an Aboriginal Australian writer...", a claim which is not supported by the rest of the article. A lede is supposed to be a distillation of the article as a whole and when there are conflicts or contradictions it cannot be allowed to give undue weight to one claim which might then be qualified in later portions of the article; the lede must reflect the entire article. Pascoe's claims of aboriginality are very much disputed by not only his critics (who may be dismissed as being biased) but also by the recognized representatives of the very indigenous groups he claims to descend from. This is discussed under the heading "Aboriginal identity", although that section also promotes Pascoe's own claims over providing any reliable secondary sources. To wit, the first sentence of that section claims "In his early thirties, Pascoe found Aboriginal ancestors on both sides of his family..." (emphasis added) The source cited for this is a talk given by Pascoe himself at the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences; i.e., it is an unreliable primary source. It doesn't require much searching to find many examples of disputations of Pascoe's ancestral claims in reliable secondary sources which, on WP take precedence over first-person claims. For example, an article from January 19 of 2020 in The Sunday Age, regarded as one of Australia's "newspapers of record" states "...the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council says it does not accept Professor Pascoe 'as possessing any Boonwurrung ancestry whatsoever'. 'We have a sophisticated...ancestral database of all peoples/families who can rightfully claim to be of Boonwurrung (aka Bunurong) descent,' chairman Jason Briggs said in a statement. 'We believe that Mr Bruce Pascoe should come clean about his real ancestry and stop abusing and benefiting from our community’s cultural integrity'." The article goes on to state "''Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania chairman Michael Mansell disputes that Professor Pascoe has Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry. 'We are such a small community down here...we know who has Aboriginal ancestry in Tasmania,' Mr Mansell said. 'He’s obviously a nice bloke who has a real sentimental connection with wanting to be Aboriginal, but that’s not the same as being Aboriginal'."'' Mansell addressed the issue at greater length in an article published on January 23, 2020 in the Tasmanian Times titled "Bruce Pascoe Is Not Tasmanian Aboriginal". To be clear: Mr. Mansell is not some pundit expressing a layman's opinion; he is an aboriginal tribal representative of impeccable credentials, a qualified solicitor before the High Court of Australia, etc. His opinion, expressed in an article he penned for a reputable regional newspaper, carries some credibility, if not actual authority. But authority is what is lacking here to support the assertion that Mr. Pascoe is "an Aboriginal Australian...", as the lede asserts. Without an authoritative source, Mr. Pascoe's ancestral claims must be couched as such, rather than as established fact. Pascoe asserts that one of his four great-grandmothers was aboriginal. An extensive examination of his ancestry here examines Pascoe's family tree and traces every member of it back to Britain, finding none who could have been aboriginal. Of course a blog post does not qualify as a reliable secondary source, but in the absence of Pascoe providing his own reliable secondary sources, it does suggest that his claims are weaker than the lede makes them out to be. It's worth quoting from the lede of WP:BLP to remind us of WP's standards: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphases added). Mr. Pascoe cannot be the source for the claim of his status as "an Aboriginal Australian" any more than Rachel Dolezal can be the source for her claim to be black, nor Elizabeth Warren for her claim to be Native American, nor can media outlets which simply quote someone be accepted as reliable secondary sources. The lede of Dolezal's article describes her as "...identifying as a transracial black...", rather than as "black", and the lede of Warren's does not mention her claimed ancestry at all, but under the heading "Public image: Ancestry and Native American issues" it describes her claimed ethnic background as "self-identified". Likewise, the lede here must be corrected to reflect the controversy over Pascoe's alleged ancestry. In accordance with WP:BLP's requirement for claims to be sourced from "reliable, published sources", I will change it to read "Bruce Pascoe (born 1947) is a self-identified Aboriginal Australian writer..." This renders it a statement of fact: Pascoe is the sole source of his claims of identity; he is literally and exclusively "self-identified". I cannot find any objective evidence to support his claim (such as the results of a DNA test, or even the name(s) of any of his ancestors who were known to have been aboriginal). Any editor who disagrees with this should not simply revert my edit but be prepared to support their position with citations from verifiable secondary sources, and to justify changing it in accordance with the requirements set-forth in WP:BLP. Bricology (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * For some reason, in that longish essay, you have completely failed to mention the major section of the article addressing this very issue. Why? And it must be said that what has happened in other countries with other people is irrelevant here. Australian Aboriginality identity cannot be compared with other situations in other countries. This is a fraught matter. Far too many critics of Dark Emu choose to make his Aboriginality or otherwise a major issue. It's not. The book stands on its own. And far too many of those critics are obvious bigots and racists. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bigots and racists? I am Aboriginal and this man is not. Funny how you can smell a White leftist from a mile off... 2001:8003:A8E1:1D01:34D2:4F18:80C4:D22F (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could both of you stop the name calling. If anybody has a suggested improvement of article content, please do share.  --Rob (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was very careful to make sure I did no name calling. Please retract that attack on me. And no, I see no need to "improve" the article at this stage. It's fine. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling people "bigoted and racist" is name calling. If you're really offended, feel free to redact your name calling, the anon's reply to it (which does include an actual attack of Pascoe, which we're allowed to remove), and everything I said subsequently, including this.  --Rob (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not describe anyone here as bigoted and/or racist. I certainly do describe many of Pascoe's critics as such. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you weren't directing them at the editor you replied to, or anyone else here, why use them at all on the talk page? If you're just making general statements about racism and bigotry in the world, with no relevance to Wikipedians, then maybe you should find a place outside Wikipedia to do that.  Note: if you were discussing reliable sources mentioning racism and bigotry of Pascoe's detractors, and wanted to include that somehow in the article, then of course, that could be something worthy discussing.  But, you made clear you see no need for changes in the article at this time.  --Rob (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To the original post, you entirely misunderstand our policies on original research, and primary sources. We as Wikipedians should not use them, but reliable sources that we cite can, and should, be doing original research, and examining primary sources.  They should be talking directly to the subject of the article.  If a reliable source, like the Guardian hypothetically, talks to Pascoe, others with direct knowledge, examines primary sources, does their own analysis, and makes a determination that they publish, we can cite/use their conclusions, without us violating WP:OR.  If you don't like what reliable sources say, then take it up with them.  --Rob (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2023
Addition to "Aboriginal Australian" to include "of English Decent" Mr Pascoes Great-Grandparents on both his Maternal and Paternal side were born in England and emigrated to Australia in the late 1800's evidence exists in proof that Mr Pascoe has no Indigenous blood and only identifies as such. Whitewings 1933 (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content must be supported by reliable sources. Do you have any for your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Geoffrey Blainey stated that Pacoe's "four grandparents were of English descent", and Warren Mundine wrote "that all Pascoe's ancestry can be traced to England". Pascoe himself wrote, "My little bit of black blood struggling in its chamber of Cornish muscle." (Gone Bush, "Middens", 1990, Roger McDonald ed.) and Pascoe has said this in several interviews. Josephine Cashman and Michael Mansell have expressed doubts about Pascoe's aboriginality. Most of this is already in the article, so readers can make up their own minds. However, as a matter of policy, the phrase "is an Aboriginal Australian writer" ought to be made compliant with MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, MOS:FIRSTBIO and MOS:ETHNICITY by only mentioning Australian citizenship. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blainey is at the far right extreme of attitudes to Aboriginal people. The rest is a cherry picked tiny list. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling Blainey far right is ridiculous. He is one of Australia's most respected historians and has written extensively and with great sympathy on Aboriginal history. Triumph of the Nomads is a classic of Australian historiography. The article cites reliable sources that question Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal identity. Many of those who question his Aboriginal identity are elders of the very people he claims identity with. The lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of the contents of the article. I therefore propose a more neutral form of wording for the lead stating that Pascoe is an Australian writer who identifies as Aboriginal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You misrepresented what I wrote about Blainey. As for Pascoe, since self identification is a primary element defining Aboriginality, why not simply say he is Aboriginal? I really don't understand the obsession over his ancestry displayed by a lot of people, especially those who don't like what he wrote. It seems that some think that if they can prove he's not Aboriginal, it somehow negates what he wrote. That makes no sense at all. And it's rather poor form on your part to make the change you proposed without any discussion on them. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of Aboriginal in Australia has three elements: 1) Aboriginal ancestry; 2) Identification as Aboriginal; 3) Acceptance by the Aboriginal community. As far as I can see from the article, Pascoe has only established 2). 1) and 3) are disputed. Therefore the most neutral thing would be to state that Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal, which is both true and uncontested. My changes are in accordance with policy BRD and lead. As for your personal observation, I don't care whether Pascoe is Aboriginal or not. My nly interest is that the lead accurately summarises the reliably sourced information in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec)You misrepresented what I wrote about Blainey. You wrote, Blainey is at the far right extreme of attitudes to Aboriginal people. How is Aemilius Adolphin's response a misrepresentation? self identification is a primary element defining Aboriginality, but the accepted standard is the tri-partite test as formulated by Brennan in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) all of which is disputed. Consequently, the recent change, "Pascoe identifies as Aboriginal." seems appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)