Talk:Dark Emu/Archive 1

early agriculture

I have not seen the book, so am not prepared to substantively edit this article. However, the lead paragraph includes "... evidence of early agriculture, engineering and building construction by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." I can't work out if "early" relates to a perceived level of development, or is a condescending, colonialist adjective. Is it possible to either remove that word, or rephrase the sentence to be more specific? The word "early" twice in the Contents section could also be enhanced with some more timeline context for readers who are not intimately familiar with the (white) exploration and expansion of Australia. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a better term in the lead would be "pre-colonial". I haven't read the book, but see that term used in the first page of introduction, when I do a preview of the book using Amazon. I think later uses of "early" are appropriate, since it refers to "early explorers" and "early settlers". We mention "Sturt's journal of his 1844 encounter", which gives the reader time context (if they don't already know). Maybe we could mention a couple other of Pascoe's sources (with years) to better put things in a time context, but don't think it's a big deal. --Rob (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just deleted the word "early" - it doesn't add any value. (Pascoe doesn't use the phrase "early agriculture", in the 2018 edition of the book.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand removal of the word "early", but why not add the term "pre-colonial" or a more appropriate term. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought a key point of the book, is that aboriginal people of Australia developed these things long before Europeans arrived. I think that's significant enough to point out in the lead. I'm not making the change myself, since I didn't read the book, and have only seen snippets, and reviews. --Rob (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't included "pre-colonial" because I thought it was redundant. It seemed obvious to me that he was talking about Aboriginal agriculture that pre-dated the European colonists. However Pascoe does use the term twice in his Introduction, so it doesn't hurt for us to use it. Added to both articles: [1][2]

Actually it's probably not redundant for a reader who only reads the lede section, because it makes it clear that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people didn't just copy things from the colonists.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Good call. Pascoe uses "pre-colonial", and it's more precise and better all round. What about a link to History of Australia#Colonisation (a redirect of "Colonial Australia") behind pre-colonial? Non-Australian readers may be interested in being directed there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking "pre-colonial" creates a MOS:SEAOFBLUE, but "... colonial accounts ..." could work. Alternatively, link "pre-colonial" and unlink "agriculture, engineering and building construction", which are more general and probably well known words. See MOS:OVERLINK. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying "early" -> "pre-colonial". That confirms what I didn't understand. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Dark Emu Disputed

The following paragraph was removed: "Some consider the book more ideological than historical, and a continuation of Australia's History wars. A dedunking website established by a group of independent amateur historians, Dark Emu Exposed[3] examines the book's claims against original sources."

The reasoning given for this was: "These additions don't seem to be supported by accredited authors. The citation is also not from a trusted source."

However, it's entirely valid to mention the book is disputed, and also to link to the History Wars article, which is helpful to general readers. The debunking site is also worthy of mention, particularly as it seeks to fact-check, and it collates a lot of source material, so is useful in weighing the arguments, whatever one's view. Whether the authors behind it are accredited or not, and their research is verifiable and accurate or not, is beside the point. That's not what is being stated: it simply supports the statement the book is disputed. There may be other good sources as well. In terms of accreditation however: if the Wikipedia article on Pascoe is accurate (?), it suggests he himself only possesses a Bachelor of Education. There are many great historians who don't possess academic credentials in history, so that would be in no way a criticism of him. But neither should it be a criticism of those behind the site that seeks to fact check his research. ClearBreeze (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms in regards to claims made in the book have been included. I have published disputes from three different historians and archeologists from Australia's top universities under the 'Reception' subheading, all of which include citations from one of Australia's most respected news rags. It is preferable to only include information whether it be evidence in favour of, or rebuttals against, from primary and verifiable sources, or respected editorials. Including citations such as the blog 'Dark Emu Exposed', no matter its own assumption that its information is accurate, cannot be verified as its author/s are anonymous and its source is from an untrusted site. Pascoe's accreditation comes from being published in print, which is costly and usually requires editors to fact check claims. Academic credentials are not direct evidence that a claim is correct, or indeed the only way someone can become respected in a field of research. Nevertheless, the source in question did not meet the standards of what could be considered verifiable and accurate information for the general reader. I will include a see also to 'History Wars' as it seems to be relevant to the general topic. Xvdces (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ClearBreeze, Xvdces is correct about the use of the "debunking" blog. See WP:RS and WP:RSUW. If you can find and report on one or more of the sources they have used, assuming they are RS, you can provide a brief paraphrase of these. But it seems to me that the article has found a fair balance, as a Wikipedia article about a book which has been almost universally well-received, regardless of your personal view. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Whoever is continually changing the description of Pascoe's Dark Emu from non-fiction to fiction should stop. I myself don't believe a lot of the book, but the primary author to this website, plus the publisher et al define it as non-fiction so it should remain so described.Austhistory99 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48, I see previous references to Dark Seed were removed due to Quadrant being a fringe source. Now it's Australian/Inquirer a mainstream Australian newspaper. What more do you want?2406:3400:319:C860:8D36:CF86:40:5B5D (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a general consensus that Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu is a hatchet job, a stridently biased work with an agenda, it's not reliable, views expressed are fringe - it's an attack piece. It is published by Quadrant. Peter O'Brien has dedicated a lot of time to writing defamatory and deranged attacks on Pascoe in Quadrant, such a vitriolic and stridently biased punter cannot be considered for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed. Dark Emu is considered by many to be a bullshit job as well, misquoting its own sources on key subjects. Dark Emu is deeply in the context of History Wars, it's dishonest to not mention a direct response publication. 58.96.85.107 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Dark Emu is widely acclaimed, the article reflects this fact. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. If you think Dark Emu is "a bullshit job" you have a strong and demonstrable bias and shouldn't be editing the article. As I've noted, the book has been almost universally well-received, regardless of your personal view. We don't call a book into question simply because Andrew Bolt and Quadrant don't like it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

My opinion and acclaim are irrelevant. A reliable source references Bitter Harvest having debunked key claims of Dark Emu. Please provide a reason for it not to be included, such as provide a reliable source of Bitter Harvest's counterclaims being debunked itself. Unless that's done in 24 hours I'm putting it back. 58.96.85.107 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Some comments to the IP editor - Firstly, it's worth noting that we don't have an article on Bitter Harvest. Perhaps, if you feel it is so significant, you could put your efforts towards addressing that. Secondly, I have seen several claims that Dark Emu misquoted its sources, but I have seen no evidence that it did so. Such a claim is too easy to make. Be aware that many of those sources, typically the logs of early settlers and explorers, have been re-published many times, often with editorial changes made. That point itself is made in Dark Emu. (I assume you will know that and its significance from having read the book yourself.) So it may be quite easy to find versions of such sources that contradict each other. Thirdly, before you waste too much time here, also have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine. It demonstrates that "Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible." The same is obviously going to apply to any author routinely associated with that journal. I will also add that The Australian is part of the Murdoch stable, publishers of Andrew Bolt. Bolt has no credibility as a commentator on Aboriginal matters. In fact he has been convicted of lying in that area. The Australian tries to put a classier veneer on the same bigotry, but still sends the same hateful, dishonest message. It's what its right wing consumers like to read. Finally, please stop wasting your time here and making threats. The latter is not going to convince anyone of your good faith and willingness to work collaboratively, a key element of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you asserting that The Australian is not reliable because of two-hop link with Quadrant, and any author that every walked near Quadrant should be banned? And what does Bolt have to do with this? Please provide a rule-backed reason for this not be included. Also, the fact that there is no article about Bitter Harvest does not invalidate a reliable source mentioning it. 58.96.85.107 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo is 100% correct about making threats - please don't make threats or ultimatums, they'll get you nowhere. The Australian is a reliable source for news, but in the WP:RSCONTEXT of "history wars" it is not. Bitter Harvest is published by an unreliable source. Bitter Harvest hasn't been refuted because no one takes it seriously enough to bother. Re-add it and it will be promptly removed as per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Bacondrum (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

OK so we're down from "consensus that it's debunked" to "no one bothered" - a claim worth backing up as well. As for WP:RSCONTEXT, you don't seem to mind other news sources referenced for book reviews etc, certainly not because they agree with your position? Would you oppose the inclusion of archeologist Dr Josephine Flood weighing in as well, as referenced here or this review of criticism, academic and not, on The Monthly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.85.107 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not covering substantial criticism of the book is dishonest and misleading. The Monthly's article mentioned above observes the following attitude which seems to pervade the discussion here: "I believe that Aboriginal people were violently dispossessed, which means I believe colonial history is racist lies, which means I believe all of Dark Emu's claims – and I refuse to hear anything to the contrary." It also questions several aspects of the book and of Pascoe's ancestry claims. The Monthly cannot be regarded as part of the "Bolt/Kenny/Murdoch right-wing complex", right? If they raise questions, why should Wikipedia not report that? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The "substantial criticism" is all from the same tiny group of mostly discredited and unethical liars. I tried hard, but gave up on reading it when it tried to use Josephine Cashman as someone credible. Even the Liberal Party's Ken Wyatt sacked her from his advisory panel for faking a story that put Andrew Bolt in the shit. The article tries to denigrate Pascoe for having only taught in REGIONAL schools. WTF is wrong with teaching in regional schools? I've done that. Maybe the author needs to get out in the regions a bit to see the real world. It also attacks him for not being a historian, something he has never claimed to be. Straw man arguments like that are used by people without a decent argument against what is actually being claimed. Stop wasting our time here using the claims of bigoted liars and professional racists to defend your own ignorance and hatred. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no substantial claims that the book is dishonest and misleading, therefore the claims raised are undue. We don't report, this is not a newspaper. Claims about Pascoes ancestry are rightfully covered in the Bruce Pascoe article. This book is almost universally well-received, regardless of your personal view, the article reflects this faxct...not the fringe views of culture warriors. End of story. Bacondrum (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no substantial claims that the book is dishonest and misleading – that's not what I wrote; omitting criticism of the book is. Wikipedia does report what secondary and tertiary sources write; Wikipedia editors do not reflect their own preferences in their writing. That the book is "almost universally well-received" is not clear from the article where, despite the section heading "Critical reception" no opposing view point is mentioned. Calling The Monthly and its contributor Russell Marks "bigoted liars and professional racists" is an astonishing statement. Referring to my "own ignorance and hatred" is an extraordinary personal attack and HiLo48 ought to withdraw it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your use of already discredited sources is evidence of ignorance. You would only attempt to use them if you are ignorant of their place in this area of debate. I am perhaps speculating about hatred when I seek reasons for you not looking wider for evidence and accepting exclusively content from right wing journals. Maybe I should have said "possible hatred". If you can provide other reasons for using such a narrow range of discredited sources, I may be convinced otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's arguably worth including a concise paragraph on the culture-war criticism if it is worded very carefully, though the attacks on Pascoe's Aboriginality are largely irrelevant to this article and it's also difficult to get into without also writing about the extremely questionable reliability of some of Pascoe's attackers (Cashman in particular, given her particular scandal) and could easily sprawl into an WP:UNDUE issue. I also don't object to including legitimate academic criticism, though I'm questionable about that labelled in The Monthly article: it's a relatively passing mention, the author's academic expertise is entirely unrelated, and this Quadrant article strongly suggests that he has got his information about that from a source that's been fact checked and debunked as unreliable elsewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that you're against inclusion of any research that highlights Pascoe's mishandling of sources, so much so that you missed Russell Marks' point entirely - that article is not about how Pascoe's wrong, it's about taking sides and how being on the "right" side means Pascoe didn't misrepresent anything. Also, why a non-academic book can only be criticized academically is beyond me. Dark Emu is first and foremost an ideological book, and inclusion of any factually correct response is valid, however biased you think it's authors are. 2406:3400:319:C860:8D36:CF86:40:5B5D (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no objective evidence that Pascoe mishandled sources. Every critical article saying such things includes bullshit from discredited sources. Any new content in such articles is therefore also questionable. This is the first time I've seen anyone claim "Dark Emu is first and foremost an ideological book". Got a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It's funny that that's basically the opposite of what I just said. We don't particularly care about Marks' arguments about taking sides in the culture war, this article is about Dark Emu, and the only bit in Marks' article that actually discusses the accuracy of Dark Emu (and not the culture wars/attacks on Pascoe's Aboriginality) is in passing, appears to come from an unreliable source, and is just used to support the point he's actually making (as you note), which is that he believes people on both sides are reacting reflexively. Using generally unreliable sources of which the specific accuracy of any claims cannot be verified without WP:OR on our part is something that we should avoid. Given the prominence of Dark Emu, I am extremely doubtful that if these sorts of claims are true there isn't criticism of the book from more reliable sources (the current published version of our article already suggests there is). The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd also support a short paragraph in the Critical reception section that mentions Bitter Harvest. This would be easier if there was an article about that book to link to for expansion, as it is not the topic of this article; neither is Pascoe himself. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think there's an argument for a paragraph on it. I'm not convinced it's notable enough for its own article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with The Drovers Wife. A paragraph about the fringe opposing view would be fine. If worded carefully. As for evidence of wide acclaim, the article includes praise from a wide number of academics, its a multi award wining best seller, it's being used as the basis for theater works etc...no reasonable person would argue that the book has been very well received in general Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Bitter Harvest is about as obscure as a published work can be, there's no grounds for it having an article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I just had a look at Peter O'Brian's work and I'll be opposing any inclusion of any of his work as it is essentially deranged stalking. Just look at the time and effort this man has put into defaming Pascoe:

• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2019/11/fauxboriginality-the-mount-elephant-myth/
• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/12/a-dark-emu-ally-flips-the-bird-at-truth/
• https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2019/12/the-bogus-aboriginal-world-of-bruce-pascoe/
• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2020/02/the-further-fictions-of-dark-emu/
• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2020/01/black-like-bruce-the-afp-takes-up-the-case/
• https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/01/bruce-pascoe-tribal-elder-of-the-seagull-mob/

and there's plenty more of this unhinged ranting. Completely unacceptable to include the criticism of an author who has clearly been fixating on and stalking Pascoe, such stridently biased and unreasonable views are beyond fringe. Bacondrum (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so we're back to looking at Quadrant again. That says a lot. Anyone unaware of how problematic it is only needs to note that its editor is Keith Windschuttle, well known for writing material about Aboriginal people only accepted now by a tiny rump of right wing commentators and readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Russell Marks' stance: Peter O'Brien asserting in Quadrant that "Marks has absorbed [his] book" doesn't make it so. HiLo48 wrote of my "use of already discredited sources". Where was The Monthly and Marks discredited? How Dark Emu is raised here to the level of scripture, excluding any criticism of Pascoe's historiography, is fawning, unencyclopedic, and unbalanced writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already pointed out above how the Monthly article itself drew on totally discredited sources, such as Josephine Cashman. I have a suspicion you may not be aware of her appalling actions in January this year. Please have a look at her article. That those arguing the case against Dark Emu includes convicted liars (Bolt) and and sacked liars (Cashman) must surely make you wonder if you are backing the right horse here. Finally, your comment, from the question mark onwards, is not one that assumes good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. I fall back from suggesting Bitter Harvest should be the subject of its own article when I realise it's not even mentioned in Bitter Harvest (disambiguation). Can someone who has read both books draft a short summary of the criticism of this book please? --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be giving undue weight to fringe views. Where else have these criticisms been raised? If O'brian is the only one who has raised them then they are next level undue and fringe. Who is O'Brian? Nobody, at least not as far as publishing his criticism here is concerned. If I write a book about how shit I think Tony Abbott is, should that be added to his article? How is O'brian any more of an authority than the next punter? No way. Bacondrum (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: I read Marks' article very different with regard to Cashman. Marks dispassionately lists Cashman's development; when he judges her, it's unfavourably. How that could discredit him is unclear. And you invoking "good faith" is galling. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I find constant lies about Dark Emu from people who clearly haven't read it quite galling. I wonder what they are scared of? That Aboriginal people are normal human beings? I can't be sure if you've read it or not, but some of the things you write make me doubt it. And are you really proud of the company you are keeping in being a critic of the book and its author? Does that "company" make you wonder, even in the slightest? It doesn't make me wonder much. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48: What did I write that makes you call me "a critic of the book and its author"? All I asked for was that the article should reflect a wider compass of the public discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please drop the obfuscation and pretend objectivity. It's not a good look. Spend your time reading the book instead. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Can we stop discussing each other and focus on the articles content? Accusations about what other editors think, their political persuasion etc are blatant personal attacks. Lets keep it WP:CIVIL, the only thing we should discuss here is the Dark Emu articles content. Bacondrum (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have not read either book, but have followed this and discussions like it across several talk pages. Since there seems to be some support to mention Bitter Harvest, and a bigger push not to give it too much emphasis, but no proposed words, here is a quick first draft to work from to keep the conversation moving on content. I would expect it to follow the paragraph beginning "The main criticism...".

Another criticism raised by some parties is an allegation that Pascoe has omitted, misinterpreted or over-emphasised some of the original material. Much of this criticism is collated in a book named Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu by Peter O'Brien.

I expect this will be changed and improved before inserting into the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelmingly positive response, the many awards and accolades this work has received, I'm okay with the inclusion of mainstream criticisms from reliable sources - but not Quadrant and Peter O'Brians vitriolic rubbish, I know it is harsh, but I've actually had a read and to put it politely, it's tedious (no I didn't read it all, because it's a woeful excuse for a book). Who is Peter O'Brian? A regular contributor to Quadrant, an unreliable source. Who publishes Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture? Quadrant, an unreliable source. How many units has Bitter Harvest: The illusion of Aboriginal agriculture sold? Hardly any. If criticisms are to be included they need to come from reliable sources. The inclusion of this poorly written, unpopular, stridently biased, unreliable attack piece is not on, it is massively WP:UNDUE, a blatant hatchet job produced by an unreliable source that's barely sold a few dozen copies. I'll fight its inclusion with all means available. Bacondrum (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Likewise. If anything is to be included, I would change those suggested words to "Another criticism raised by the usual suspects....", or "Another criticism raised by some already discredited and convicted bigots and liars..." (I can provide sources if required.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Joining the club of people who think that that shouldn't go in the article without at a minimum discussion of its veracity. If I run an organisation which exists to put out a magazine which longstanding consensus holds is not an WP:RS, and then I decide to publish a few books with exactly the same sorts of issues as the magazine, it doesn't hold that the books are magically more reliable sources than the same content by the same people in magazine form. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Usual suspects" or "discredited and convicted bigots and liars" are clearly not appropriate. We can name Andrew Bolt and Quadrant (magazine) if you like. I was trying to be circumspect, particularly since the Quadrant (magazine) doesn't go anywhere near those adjectives. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's discussed, it needs to be in the context of Dark Emu being the subject of a culture-war flare-up (along with Bolt, Cashman, etc) and not treating it as a reliable source in itself (in contrast to how we treat the criticism from reliable sources already in the article). The proposed paragraph takes entirely the wrong tack in that regard. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with The Drovers Wife, but I'd add that Bitter Harvest deserves no mention at all, any mention would be completely undue - the book is awful, hardly anyone one has read it. I do also agree with Scott that calling detractors (no matter how tedious their tired old agenda driven clap trap is) "discredited and convicted bigots and liars" would not be even in the same dimension as a reasonable inclusion. Only mainstream and reasonable criticisms should be included, really. The argy-bargy with Bolt et al is really a feud between Pascoe and the "usual suspects", it's covered in the Bruce Pascoe article, this article is about a widely acclaimed, award winning book which posits arguments that have been very well received by the overwhelming majority of Pascoe's peers, even those peers that have questioned his assertions have gone nowhere near the vitriolic response of O'Brian and the other "usual suspects". In context, the views of the "usual suspects" are certainly WP:FRINGE. Bacondrum (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd call them that fringe in the sense that Cashman's extremely public meltdown and Bolt's vendetta eventually blew the culture war aspect into public attention. These are largely things to be mainly addressed in Cashman's and Pascoe's articles, but to the extent that they're targeting Pascoe because they really, really hate his book it's relevant. It probably needs some kind of brief summary of Cashman/Bolt/etc and then a brief reference to Bitter Harvest as part of that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Drovers Wife, I can see the argument for including Bolt and Cashman's criticisms, but not O'Brian's - they are the unhinged rantings of someone with no expertise on the subject. Who is Peter O'Brian? A one time author, retired military officer and contributor of tin hat conspiracy theories (ie: Waubra Foundation) to Quadrant, other than that I've not heard of him before and can find nothing else about him online. That barely readable rant and its obscure author are fringe and deserve no mention, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting that Dark Emu is fringe science itself, as its claims about fully sedentary tribes are not supported by peer-reviewed archaeology. 2406:3400:319:C860:24CB:1221:5DEB:46EA (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that I have ever seen that describe Dark Emu as fringe science. This page is for discussions regarding improving the article. That post adds nothing to such discussions. 11:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Disputed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The initiator and predominant participant in this discussion User:ClearBreeze has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive battleground behavior and incivility. Other editors are welcome to continue discussions on the same theme, but it would be most constructive to do so in another section of this page. Bacondrum 00:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The article continues to incorrectly represent the critical response to the book, and any attempts to address this are rigorously resisted by the book's Wikipedia supporters. Yet it is an absolute falsehood that, as the article currently states, "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices." There has been sustained criticism of Pascoe's scholarship, including two books challenging the book's thesis! That this remains unmentioned is unacceptable. The author of one of the books has an article at the link which features some of his points. It is at Quadrant, which has been flagged (in typical Wikipedia leftist style) as a disputable source. However, the author features a link to the same source Pascoe uses for one claim which clearly shows his distortion. So in this circumstance the source could be used in context if required.[[4]] ClearBreeze (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Quadrant is simply unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine. That's simply its most recent mention. There are several others. If you want anything from Quadrant included here, you need to achieve a different consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on that, but until you do, you're wasting your time here. Now, stop wasting everyone else's time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

ClearBreeze, please see WP:DISPUTED. The template is reserved for flagging factual inaccuracies in the article, of which there are none that I can see. The main criticism of the book has been represented by a reliable source, and no experts in the field have backed up the opinion piece in Quadrant. Even discounting the fact that it's an unacceptable source, it's an opinion piece by someone with no qualifications in the field. Opinions may relevant when talking about an artwork or novel, but this is a non-fiction work which represents the work of others. And calling Wikipedia leftist when it is representing scholarly opinions only serves to expose your bias. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"it's an opinion piece by someone with no qualifications in the field". And what relevant qualifications has Pascoe? Let's make it plain and easy. Here's my suggestion for the paragraph that should go in which details to a small degree some of what is missing (because at the moment the article reads like a Press Release). As a source it uses the Liberal Left magazine The Monthly. Every statement is relevant, cold fact.

Who wrote that? It's telling that every time someone wants to condemn this book, we have inexperienced and/or incompetent editors popping up, unable to properly follow our rules for effectively structuring conversations. I keep wondering where the canvassing occurs. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"'Dark Emu' has also been the subject of strong criticism, particularly from conservative commentators. It has been claimed that Pascoe, who is not a trained historian, "regularly exaggerates and embellishes" on the primary sources he uses, and employs selective quoting which "creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material...And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows." A book,Bitter Harvest: The Illusion of Aboriginal Agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu by Peter O’Brien has also appeared, as well as a website Dark Emu Exposed [5], which features primary sources Pascoe employed, and compares them against the book's claims." The precise source for the quote is: Russell Marks, Taking Sides Over ‘Dark Emu’, The Monthly, May 2020 [6] (If you're too cheap to purchase a subscription, you can check the quote by viewing the page's code.) ClearBreeze (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I had mentioned Russell Marks' article in The Monthly before. It was then rejected in the "discussion" above because Marks had been mentioned approvingly by Peter O'Brien – that's enough to cancel Marks as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys: it is deeply mysterious why no one is taking your arguments seriously. Like, surely you have a friend less interested in politics than you are; go ask them about whether whining about being "cancel[ed]" "in typical leftist style" sounds like it's part of a substantive or collaborative discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek Well, The Monthly has not (as far as I'm aware) been sentenced to outer darkness as being an unreliable source, so its use here is utterly valid. To dismiss it simply because O'Brien liked Marks review (which would be totally natural) is specious. Yet Marks is not fully for or fully against Pascoe: it's quite obvious he's merely trying to be balanced in laying out the facts as he sees them. Which makes his observation in the quote an informative and useful one, if one wishes to balance out the almost complete hagiography of the current article.

To keep the discussion focused can we comment specifically on the proposed paragraph as I have written it. Any other issues/suggested alterations? ClearBreeze (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I already mentioned above in March that Marks' article would bring some balance to this article, and 3 editors agreed to varying extent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Marks' article is not about the book; he quotes the criticism in order to illustrate his point and develop his premise. It is impossible to reproduce the background to all of this in this article. I'll have another look when I have more time, but having read the article and the previous discussion again, I'm just going to reproduce what The Drover's Wife wrote, which I think is the nub of the matter: "We don't particularly care about Marks' arguments about taking sides in the culture war, this article is about Dark Emu, and the only bit in Marks' article that actually discusses the accuracy of Dark Emu (and not the culture wars/attacks on Pascoe's Aboriginality) is in passing, appears to come from an unreliable source, and is just used to support the point he's actually making (as you note), which is that he believes people on both sides are reacting reflexively" (my italics). I don't object to using the article, but it runs the risk of getting into WP:UNDUE and WP:CRIT problems because of the difficulty of trying to frame what Marks is saying accurately, without quoting and paraphrasing extensively. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I realise I need to rewrite the suggested paragraph. The "Critical Reception" section has FIVE paragraphs, the first FOUR of praise. Only the last addresses the opposing opinion, but only barely, and it's both incorrect and fails to indicate how heated criticism of the book -- as part of the 'History Wars' -- has been. It states: "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts". FALSE. It's Pascoe's THESIS that's been the focus of the criticism. So, here's the revision:

BEGINS "'Dark Emu' has also been the subject of strong criticism, particularly from conservative commentators, who have dismissed its central claim that Australian aborigines were not only hunter gatherers, but agriculturalists. It has been stated that Pascoe, who is not a trained historian, "regularly exaggerates and embellishes" on the primary sources he uses, and employs selective quoting which "creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material...And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows." A book,Bitter Harvest: The Illusion of Aboriginal Agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu by Peter O’Brien has also appeared, as well as a website Dark Emu Exposed [7], which features primary sources Pascoe employed, and compares them against the book's claims." ENDS

Now, PLEASE focus your comments directly on agreeing with this text, OR improving it, so we can insert it. If you're not happy with it, append your suggested version. Otherwise, the discussion will just ramble for ever. (n.b. The Marks text, coming from a reliable source, and being in a section meant to inform on the OPPOSING view, is utterly acceptable IMHO.) ClearBreeze (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that text is that it's describing frantic, frothing-at-the-mouth, irrational criticism from what is really on a very tiny number of hard core racists, or fomenters of racism for political purposes. It is so easy to dismiss, and has been, that when correctly described it actually says a lot more about those commentators than about the book. Being associated as it was with pointless attacks on Pascoe's claims about his ancestry (which of course make absolutely no difference to the book's content), they looked even sillier. Some short term noise in some right wing journals, but little else. The fact that this book has an article, and Dark Emu Exposed doesn't, is significant too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1. "Some short term noise in some right wing journals, but little else." Incorrect. The criticism has been significant and sustained in the conservative press. Yes, some of it has been linked with Pascoe's identity, but his thesis has been vigrously disputed, which is what we're dealing with here. 2."The problem with that text is that it's describing frantic, frothing-at-the-mouth, irrational criticism". That's a distortion. The other side has vigorously put forward its views and have made chapter-and-verse quotes from the book set against the original sources, in order that that their criticisms be assessed on the facts that Pascoe himself used. Marks' text itself is extremely modulated, reflecting the pains at which its author has been to describe in his article both opinions, of which the Wikipedia article currently doesn't, and needs to. I think we would be hard pressed to find a calmer representation of the opposing view, so unless you can source an alternative quote, IMHO we need to go with this one. We could paraphrase it, but that wouldn't solve your objection that the views are, per se, offensive to you. However, we are doing readers a grave injustice if we only produce hagiography. An encyclopedia needs to be encyclopediac. If a range of opinions about the book have been expressed –– as they have, readers need to know. And the opposition has hardly been a mouse's sneeze: the circulation figures of the conservative Murdoch press, which have shared doubts on the book's thesis, dwarf those of the left-leaning Fairfax papers. ClearBreeze (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I read as far as you claiming the views were offensive to me. That is not what I said. It's a misrepresentation. You lose. There is no point in continuing this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"It's a misrepresentation." That's your opinion. I, and a great many others, respectfully disagree. Given your opinion is not the only one, the discussion continues. Again, could commentators please focus on the suggested text. Thanks. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

YOU didn't focus on the fucking text! You made your response about ME. Again, you lose. I know that's a personal comment from me, and I acknowledge that's not the way discussion should proceed here, but I only ever do it when some apparent POV pusher begins to lose control of the factual, rule based conversation, and starts to talk about other editors. YOU broke the rules. You cannot expect respect from others in return. So, apologise for getting personal. Redact your lie about me above. Put yourself in a mindset where you don't talk about other editors. And maybe then this conversation can continue. Right now, you have no right to expect others to even bother responding to your ramblings. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors for this. (As HiLo48 has flagged they're uninterested in rational debate, but only in creating a distraction, I won't derail the debate further by pandering to the ungoverned.) Please continue; including @Michael Bednarek and @Scott Davis, but again with regard to the proposed text.ClearBreeze (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I still haven't finished reading your post above starting with a 1. As I said at the time, I stopped when your comment became an idiotic one about me. Then we have you telling people to "focus on the suggested text". LOL. Your credibility has gone right down the drain. It might improve if you can expand your apology above to firstly be a personal one to me for making your comment about me rather than the topic, and secondly to everyone for your hypocrisy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To make it easier for editors, here is the suggested text again for commenting in highlighted box. Thanks.

PROPOSED TEXT TO REPLACE 4th PARA IN ARTICLE SECTION 'RECEPTION': PLEASE APPROVE OR SUGGEST SPECIFIC REVISION:

'Dark Emu' has also been the subject of strong criticism, particularly from conservative commentators, who have dismissed its central claim that Australian aborigines were not only hunter gatherers, but agriculturalists. It has been stated that Pascoe, who is not a trained historian, "regularly exaggerates and embellishes" on the primary sources he uses, and employs selective quoting which "creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material...And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows." A book, Bitter Harvest: The Illusion of Aboriginal Agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu by Peter O’Brien has also appeared, as well as a website Dark Emu Exposed, which features primary sources Pascoe employed, and compares them against the book's claims.

ENDS Quote is from: Russell Marks, Taking Sides Over ‘Dark Emu’, The Monthly, May 2020.

ClearBreeze (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Still no apology for making me the topic? Didn't think we'd see one. Right now you simply seem to be pushing a non mainstream POV. Wikipedia has no obligation to report what bigots say about a book they don't like. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Well they won't be able to apologize for a while, as they've now been blocked. On the substance, it's difficult to see this as an accurate representation of the content of Marks's (balanced, and interesting) article. --JBL (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the news re ClearBreeze. That should remove some tension and time wasting from a few threads. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 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.

Disputed 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Two of the main participants in this part of the discussion have been blocked for disruptive and COI editing here and at Talk:Bruce Pascoe. Other editors are welcome to continue discussions on the same theme, but it would be most constructive to do so in another section of this page. --JBL (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

---

As many of have been saying over the past year, this Wikipedia page does not accurately reflect the critical response to the book, and any attempts to address this are rigorously resisted by Dark Emu's Wikipedia supporters who claim critics have COI or are unreliable sources. But events are proving our claims that Dark Emu is deeply flawed. Editors are invited to read "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture" Published online: 05 Jan 2021 in Anthropological Forum A Journal of Social Anthropology and Comparative Sociology by Dr. Ian Keen School of Archaeology and Anthropology, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

My suggestion is to include a paragraph in the "Critical Reception' section along the lines of "Australian anthropologist Ian Keen has 'subjected the evidence for Aboriginal farming presented in Dark Emu to scrutiny, and finds that while the boundary between foraging and farming is a fuzzy one, Aboriginal people were indeed hunters, gatherers and fishers at the time of the British colonisation of Australia'.Austhistory99 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's very little "published online" at the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences's School of Archaeology & Anthropology's blurb. Without a proper publication or at least a transcript/video, there's not much that can be usefully presented here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly - that blurb to publicise a seminar does nothing to challenge Pascoe's assertions in the book. He does not suggest that all Aboriginal peoples were practising agriculture nor that they were not hunters and gatherers as well; he just highlights the existing research and evidence showing that there were settlements, aquaculture, grinding of grain, etc. in some parts of the country. There are always lively debates in topics such as history and archaeology, and differences in opinion about the extent of the farming do exist - we know that. But I have yet to see a serious examination or specific criticism about anything that he has written about, because he is mostly reporting what has already been written elsewhere. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears you have missed my recent point - we have moved beyond the "seminar blurb" stage - the peer-reviewed academic paper has now been published on 5th Jan 2021. Do you have access to this paper? Austhistory99 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In an area as fraught as this, with blatant irrational attacks by racists, bigots and haters being the main criticisms of the book, all we have here is an abstract a few lines long. That abstract does not explicitly contradict the claims in the book. Like much of the criticism we see of this book on Wikipedia, this sub-section begins with a breach of WP:AGF and, effectively, WP:NPA. It deserves to be ignored, and the perpetrator deserves to be disciplined. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you only the publicly available abstract - if you cannot access the whole paper I am happy to send it to you, subject to copyright (only for your own research and not to be posted). If you haven't read the whole of Dr Keen's paper then you perhaps shouldn't be jumping to your conclusion. His paper is all about a critique of Dark Emu and Pascoe's methodology and some of his supporters and points out myriad examples of why Dark Emu is wrong and its detractors are 'correct'. Below is an excerpt from this paper where Dr Keen writes, "Many critiques of Dark Emu have come from the political right. They include the writings and broadcasts of Andrew Bolt (Morton 2019); articles in, and a book published by Quadrant magazine (O’Brien 2019), whose editor Keith Windschuttle engaged extensively in the ‘history wars’; and the Dark Emu Exposed (Anon. 2020) as well as the Quadrant online (quadrant.org.au) websites. Unfortunately, in my judgement these critiques of Pascoe’s treatment of his historical sources are largely correct. The forthcoming book by the anthropologist and linguist Peter Sutton and the archaeologist Keryn Walshe (Sutton and Walshe, forthcoming), brings a high standard of scholarship in scrutinising Pascoe’s claims, and adopts a non-political stance. Defences of Dark Emu have come from the political left. Rick Morton of The Saturday Paper, for example, writes: ‘after reading the explorer journals on which the book is based’ he was ‘unable to find any errors’ in Dark Emu (Morton 2019). This is quite surprising, as we shall see. Professor Marcia Langton is reported to have said that Dark Emu ‘is the most important book on Australia and should be read by every Australian’ (Lee 2020). Again, coming as it does from an eminent scholar, this is an unexpected judgement". (ibid, page 2)

Your biased position in uncritically defending Pascoe and Dark Emu and preventing countering viewpoints being available for Wikipedia readers, will be shown to have put you on the wrong side of history, especially when Sutton's book is published this year. There is no reason not to include the respected Dr Keen's (who has his own Wikipedia page!) academic views on Dark Emu Austhistory99 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Austhistory99 The publicly available abstract does not indicate what position the author has taken (if any), and even after your quote above, there is no specific criticism of the text - just a string of names, and his opinion. We need better than that for Wikipedia. Also, unless I am mis-remembering, are you not banned from editing this topic owing to COI? Let's await the Sutton book for a meaningful debate. I have no problem with robust criticisms which actually address specific topics in the book, but I don't see any yet. What Pascoe has done is throw light on past research which shows that many Aboriginal Australians did practise agriculture and aquaculture and in some cases had quite strong domestic economies, and I have yet to see anything which disproves this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink - You ask "...are you not banned from editing this topic owing to COI?" Not sure about being explicitly banned, but there's an interesting note regarding Austhistory99 and likely COI right near the top of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Disputed (second section break)

In my view, and in light of academic and other commentary over the last twelve months about the book the subject of this article, the article was failing the WP:NPOV requirement until just now, when I expanded the "Critical reception" by adding a new "Criticisms" section. As a consquence of strong criticisms of the subject book that have been made, not just by rightwing commentators, in the last twelve months, the book now appears to be largely discredited. Whereas the previous version of the article did not even mention most of the criticisms, the new section makes clear that the book has been heavily criticised, for various reasons. As the new section indicates, rightwingers have criticised the book for exaggerating its sources, and others have said not only that the exaggerations discredit the book's central thesis (which some of the critics support), but also that in any event that thesis is a disservice to Aborigines because it implies that agricultural pursuits are more worthy than hunting and gathering. (One of the academic critics has also critised certain other academics who have praised the book, but I chose to leave out that academic skirmishing.)

I also now respond briefly to some of the above comments about "reliable sources", which seem to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If and to the extent that Wikipedia publishes assertions of fact, those assertions should therefore be supported by a citation to a "reliable source", ie a source of factual information that can considered to be reliable. Speaking generally, quality newspapers such as The Guardian are regarded as "reliable sources", because they generally publish reliably what purport to be facts, and publishers of opinion pieces are not regarded as "reliable sources" because opinions are debatable. Although some of the comments above criticise Quadrant on the basis that it is not regarded as a "reliable source", that criticism is misplaced. The reason Quadrant is so classified is, simply, that it publishes opinion pieces, not news focusing on reliably reported facts.

In the circumstances, if The Guardian publishes an article asserting that the subject book and its author "... have been targeted by rightwing commentators", as The Guardian has done on more than one occasion, that assertion can also be published in Wikipedia as being sourced to The Guardian. Similarly, if an academic associated with a reputable university writes an article in an academic journal, and especially if both the academic and the journal are the subject of separate Wikipedia articles, and the article identifies the rightwing commentators who have criticised the subject book, then the relevant passage can be quoted in Wikipedia and sourced to the author and journal. That is how the new section I have just added to the subject article begins, and it proceeds in similar fashion. No portion of the new section is sourced to Quadrant, or any book published by Quadrant, or any anonymously published website.

Finally, it is not correct to assert by implication that Associate Professor Keen's article is not publicly available. It is publicly available, albeit behind a paywall, just as Pascoe's book is publicly available, albeit that you have to buy it from someone. As a Wikipedia editor, I have assumed good faith on User:Austhistory99's part in quoting a passage from Keen's article on the assumption that User:Austhistory99 has correctly quoted that passage. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As soon as you wrote "the book now appears to be largely discredited", you lost all credibility. Your Criticism section is twice the size of the Praise section. That's completely inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with criticisms being appropriately expressed, but see WP:CRIT. In the case of this book, Bahnfrend, the section you added was just way too long and quoted the critics at inappropriate length, definitely WP:UNDUE and NPOV. While there certainly are issues, and opinions differ (a lawyer posts his opinion here, highlighting some of the commentary and the heat in the debate), it is certainly not true to say that the book has been "largely discredited". This is not the impression returned by Google, even if you add "controversy" to your search terms. A few brief mentions of the criticisms, relating to the fact that Pascoe is not an historian, and the fact that he embellishes and adds his own opinions here and there, is enough. This is Wikipedia, and as there is no way to cover the wider debate in a concise way, in my view it is better to err on the brief side. We don't need continuing edit-warring over this. The book has been lauded, and it has been used to raise the awareness of the general public of some history that was largely being ignored. Geography teachers have developed teaching resources around it. Wikipedia is not here to be the mouthpiece of opinions. Let's give enough in the citations and further reading for those who wish to dig deeper to do so, but trying to represent a multitude of opinions in this article is only going to lead to further arguments. There are many many controversial books (I just thought to have a look at The Lucky Country as an example), but Wikipedia doesn't seek to cover all of the criticisms and opinions. I don't want to have to keep coming back to this page, and I'm sure a few other editors feel the same! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort User:Bahnfrend and please don't give up. Have another go at writing a much shorter paragraph noting the critique of Dark Emu by the academic Dr Ian Keen. Yes, I am quoting from his article exactly in good faith. If you fail again, we will look to bring in some other independent Wikipedia editors to resolve what is starting to look like bad faith from some current editors.Austhistory99 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a bad faith faith post. My concern about the edits by User:Bahnfrend centred around them creating a criticism section twice the size of the praise section, plus using the words "the book now appears to be largely discredited". That was a bad faith comment. Have you read the book? Fully? HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add my support to the efforts of User:Bahnfrend. The article in its current form does not reflect WP:NPOV and the valid criticisms from Ian Keen, and apparently some other respected academics as well. merlinVtwelve (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Keen's major work on Aboriginal people was done almost half a century ago. We now know a lot more about this subject. Dark Emu is a much more modern view. Throwing around the adjective "respected" about other cherry picked writers is unhelpful. Have you read the book yourself? HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr Keen has not retired from active research and his 50+ years of experience surely count for something.PetroAntonio (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they count for something, but over that time period most white people have recognised that Aboriginal society and lifestyles were far more complex than generally believed fifty years ago. If Dr Keen still thinks the same way he did fifty years ago, he is not a very good scholar. Have you read Dark Emu? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr Keen has been active all that time, so, certainly, his views would have been informed by later research. But his review of Dark Emu is current and, presumably, based on his understanding of the latest research, which is obvious from the references he cites in his paper. Yes I have read Dark Emu very carefully. Have you read Dr Keen's paper?PetroAntonio (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No. My local library doesn't have it. It has several copies of Dark emu, because it's an excellent book in which I see no flaws. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take up the offer of Austhistory99 to send you a copy of the Keen paperPetroAntonio (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, will you bloody well learn how to indent your posts properly! I keep fixing for you so you don't look like the novice editor you obviously are. Secondly, I see so point in reading Keen's paper. Dark Emu stands on its own. I find it fascinating when newbies, obviously from the hateful, racist right, pop up here with allegedly good sources, but which nobody else has ever heard of, while the vast majority of the population carries on respecting their target far more. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the indenting. Hopefully this works. My book Bitter Harvest has been summarily dismissed by most editors of this article, partly on the basis that I have no qualifications to evaluate Dark Emu because I am 'not a historian'. Setting aside that neither is Bruce Pascoe a historian, you say that you can find no flaws in Dark Emu. May I, with great respect, ask if you are a historian? And what are the odds that a history written by a non-historian would have no flaws? PetroAntonio (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I should have recognised the name. Your conflict of interest here really makes your contributions worth nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a 'conflict of interest' does not prevent me from contributing to discussions. It does prevent me from directly editing articles but the rules do allow me to request or propose an edit via this forum PetroAntonio (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. It's a place to discuss improvements to the article. And you stuffed up the indenting again. A serious recommendation I frequently make to people like yourself is to go away from this area of editing. Work on some other areas of Wikipedia where you can be of use. Your writing is excellent, and a lot of articles need massive cleanups. Engaging only in areas where you hold extreme opinions is a bad move. If you contribute elsewhere for a while, you can learn a lot more about standard Wikipedia conventions, and simply how to be more useful to the project. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's hope I get the indenting right this time. HiLo48, I note what you say, nonetheless I would still be interested in your response to my questions. PetroAntonio (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dark Emu stands on its own — For the purpose of the Wikipedia article, Dark Emu cannot "stand on its own" - Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following addition to the Critical Acclaim section: "The central premise of Dark Emu viz that Aboriginal people were essentially sedentary agriculturalists rather than nomadic hunter/gatherers, was challenged by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen, in a paper entitled "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture" published in the journal Anthropological Forum in January 2021". I apologize in advance for any mistakes or omissions I have made in formatting. PetroAntonio (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Only if we balance your cherry picking with reference to this new ABC article, which says of the book

"...if you’re looking for facts, look no further than Amy’s other recommendation: Dark Emu.

"...This text accesses the diaries and notes of the invaders/settlers/explorers to challenge the stories of exactly what was first seen and 'discovered' when this continent was invaded some 230+ years ago," she says.

"It does a lot of great work in correcting misinformation about the who, what and how of these lands were prior to invasion [and will] continue to be relevant to days of mourning and protests such as January 26th … it’s a myth-busting title that will take a bit of intentional reading time but be worth every minute." HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'll let you make the necessary addition. PetroAntonio (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe either addition helps the article. They are just clutter. And point scoring attempts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The current Critical Reception section contains the following criticism "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices." That is followed by an expansion which includes the gratuitous observation that "Lourandos and McNiven are delighted at the book's success in reaching the broader public", which sounds rather like clutter to me. But that is by the way. There is now criticism of the book by another well qualified academic. My proposed addition makes no judgement or assessment of Dr Keen's analysis. It simply points out its existence. Surely that is the purpose of the article - to provide the public with relevant information about the topic? PetroAntonio (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"The central premise of Dark Emu viz that Aboriginal people were essentially sedentary agriculturalists..." I don't have my copy to hand because I lent it to someone, but I'm pretty sure that this misrepresents the content of the book. Pascoe mentions specific examples, such as the eel traps and villages of the Gunditjmara, and he certainly doesn't claim that the peoples of the central desert area were settled agriculturalists. Remember that there are many different peoples (and were more, with hundreds of languages), and anything which suggests that they were a homogeneous society is clearly wrong. (I used an outdent because my tablet app doesn't show any indenting and can only see what I'm typing.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The back cover of Dark Emu, presumably with Pascoe's imprimatur, states that "Pascoe puts forward a compelling argument for a reconsideration of the hunter-gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians. The evidence insists that Aboriginal people right across the continent were using domesticated plants, sowing, harvesting, irrigating and storing - behaviours inconsistent with the hunter-gatherer tag." PetroAntonio (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"My proposed addition makes no judgement or assessment of Dr Keen's analysis. It simply points out its existence. Surely that is the purpose of the article - to provide the public with relevant information about the topic?" Who decides on the relevance, when do we decide it's enough, and when do we leave it out because it's from a known liar? Andrew Bolt has said an awful lot about the book. We include nothing of what he has said, and won't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dr Keen is a liar? Or that I am? PetroAntonio (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This article attracts a lot of novice and naïve editors with minimal experience and understanding of how Wikipedia works, many of whom seem to have the single goal of proving that Aboriginal people were primitive savages who deserved to be conquered and have their land stolen. Because of this we need to be constantly vigilant with any negative additions. It's up to you to convince us that your proposed addition really adds anything of value to the article. I also note that you still haven't demonstrated an interest in assisting with and learning from any other area of Wikipedia. It looks a bit obsessional, and narrow. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48, I notice that you are adept at avoiding answering questions, so let me answer yours. If I am to become more proficient in editing Wikipedia articles, I would prefer to do my learning in an area in which I have some expertise, to wit Dark Emu. When I wrote Bitter Harvest it was not my intention to prove that "Aboriginal people were primitive savages who deserved to be conquered and have their land stolen". That is not what I believe. I set out to demonstrate that Pascoe had failed to prove his theory. (Incidentally in all my writings on this subject I have taken nothing from Andrew Bolt. Everything I have written is as a result of my own research.) In respect of the fact that I have developed an argument against Dark Emu, I could be said to be partisan, but that does not, of itself, discredit my views. But getting back to Dr Keen, other editors have read his paper and judged it a credible and substantive critique from a highly qualified source. If they are correct, then DR Keen's paper deserves mention in a section titled 'Critical Reception'. You, on the other hand, have declined to read Dr Keen's paper on the grounds that, in your opinion, Dark Emu is flawless, which incidentally would make it unique in the annals of non-fiction writing. That makes you a partisan player, not an objective editor. PetroAntonio (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my position. And my suggestion to edit elsewhere, one I have made to many new editors over the years, is precisely to avoid working on topic where you know a lot. That's not necessary to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. Being able to write well, and consistently apply our policies and guidelines on ANY article is just as useful. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In what way have I misrepresented your position? Could you clarify please. PetroAntonio (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"in your opinion, Dark Emu is flawless" An obvious example of something I did not say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"My local library doesn't have it (Dr Keen's paper). It has several copies of Dark emu, because it's an excellent book in which I see no flaws." PetroAntonio (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but I take your point. I STILL recommend you get out and see a lot more of how Wikipedia works. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The only way they could not be the same would be if you meant "there may be flaws in Dark Emu, but if there are I can't see them". If that is what you meant, why then why would you not be interested to see what those flaws might be? PetroAntonio (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Because most of those who have come here to point out "flaws" have done so using the Andrew Bolt approach, and those of us who care about the article's quality have become rather sick of protecting it from racist and bigoted nonsense. Not your fault, of course, but that's reality. Given that history here, your argument has to be particularly convincing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there another editor out there, who has read Dr Keen's paper, who believes it does not deserve to be mentioned in the article? PetroAntonio (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

While you wait for answers, how about you find everything written by all academics about Dark Emu? That way you can move away from charges of cherry-picking. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The Critical Reception section contains three unqualified positive reviews by academics and two by academics who support the book but take issue with one minor peripheral issue. My book Bitter Harvest, critical of Dark Emu, has been ignored because I am from the 'hateful, racist right'. The Dark Emu Exposed website is not acceptable for presumably similar reasons. That there would be no valid dissenting views on a work of history or anthropology defies common sense. So I offer an opinion by a qualified academic, almost certainly not from the hateful racist right. I am not the one cherry picking. PetroAntonio (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest that you both take at least a day off this page, PetroAntonio and HiLo48, and return when we have at least one other editor involved, and/or a better understanding of what is going to be agreeable to all parties? PetroAntonio, I'm sorry to have reverted your change (and another introduced by a vandal after yours), but you had neither linked nor cited properly, but more importantly, as per my comments above, your characterisation of the content of the book was just plain incorrect. Pascoe definitely does not claim that [all, or any] Aboriginal people were "essentially sedentary". I will come back to this once I've had more time to concentrate on this, get my copy back, and preferably without the headache I have right now. You cannot use the publisher's blurb (which, btw, most writers don't have control over), and create a straw man argument. I don't have time for a thorough search now, but "There certainly was a lot of movement... but there was also a lot more sedentary living than we were led to believe." [8] It is very difficult to achieve a nuanced debate in a Wikipedia article within a reasonable length and without doing some of the contributors (sources) a disservice, hence my reluctance to keep growing this article. However, I would like to hear from more editors, and come back to this when I am better able to give it the attention it deserves. There is no rush. PA - I have put a welcome panel on your page with a lot of links to help you with some of the basics of editing Wikipedia, and may I suggest that if you want to get a bit of practice, create something in your sandbox first - then perhaps an addition to the Keen article, which looks as if it could do with a bit of updating? (And have a look at WP:SPA.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, thank you for your intervention and your suggestions. I welcome the input of other editors and I apologize for my ineptitude in linking to sources. I do accept that Pascoe does not explicitly state that Aborigines were essentially sedentary agriculturalists but he has structured his narrative to give that impression to the general public and that is what Dr Keen is attempting to address. I would be content to have my contribution amended along the lines of: 'The evidence that Dark Emu offers in support of the extent of pre-colonial Aboriginal agricultural practice has been challenged by anthropologist Dr Ian Keen, in a paper entitled "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture" published in the journal Anthropological Forum in January 2021 Keen argues that the evidence has been exaggerated and that the designation 'hunter-gatherer', that has traditionally been used to describe Aboriginal society, is appropriate." PetroAntonio (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

− Um, regardless of what legitimate contributers have said above, both user:Austhistory99 author of //www.dark-emu-exposed.org/ and user:PetroAntonio author of Bitter Harvest have serious and still undeclared conflicts of interest and it is completely unethical for either of them to be contributing to this article in anyway. Their contributions are unethical, intended to defame and these two editors are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I'm taking this to ANI. Bacondrum 11:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: WP:ANI#Serious conflict of interest issues, blatant advocacy and defamation. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, I have no conflict of interest in relation to Dr Keen's paper and I have made no secret of the fact that I am the author of Bitter Harvest. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe Dark Emu is seriously flawed. In this thread I have made no attempt to promote my book. In any case, as far as I can ascertain the COI rules do not preclude someone with a conflict to propose an amendment or to participate in discussion. PetroAntonio (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You have written extensively on the subject, you are blatantly violating COI rules. The fact that neither you or Austhistory99 have declared this at any point in this discussion is deceptive and unethical. Bacondrum 11:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

And it gets worse, PetroAntonio should be indef blocked, no question about it. This is their work: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/

To satisfy a neutral point of view (NPOV) this article is ultimately going to have to refer to Dr Ian Keen's critique of Dark Emu. It is flippant of one editor to claim that because 'Keen's major work on Aboriginal people was done almost half a century ago', his views in 2020 on Dark Emu are invalid. Dr Keen has published a University text in 2004 on the hunter-gatherer economies of seven widely spaced Aboriginal societies at the threshold of colonisation (https://textbooks.zookal.com.au/products/aboriginal-economy-and-society-9780195507669?variant=34004192034948&gclid=CjwKCAiA9bmABhBbEiwASb35V6V_5RMGnTwh5BvKh_puiTgmtrwMquJEcFLW3dE-nltVtw0IbAL9phoCKSMQAvD_BwE, which he has summarised in a 2003 paper for any of you editors to read here (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269867475_Aboriginal_economy_and_society_at_the_threshold_of_colonisation). Dr Keen is still a practicing academic. If none of us current editors can devise a short paragraph to include which mentions Dr Keen's critique of Dark Emu, it may well be time to call in some independent editors to resolve this long running impasse Austhistory99 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Austhistory99 and PetroAntonio are indef blocked for disruptive editing including blatant advocacy and conflict of interest violations. All comments by these editors are to be disregarded. Bacondrum 01:21, 26 January 2021 (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.

Significant disruption - blatant advocacy and conflict of interest violations

So, we've just experienced some significant disruption by now indef blocked editors engaged in blatant advocacy and conflict of interest violations. If anyone would like to start again with those conversations in good faith, please do. Bacondrum 15:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the previous #Disputed section above, which was archived by Bacondrum. Yes there was blatant advocacy and COI, but the main section and #Disputed (second section break) were not started by the blocked editors, and the discussion does include some valid comments and suggestions by reputable editors in good standing. It might be appropriate to start a fresh discussion in a new section, but I think it premature to completely remove the discussion thus far. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mitch. Sorry, I was trying to be helpful, but I understand why you restored the discussion. I archived it because it was a total mess and the arguments were lost in the disruptive editing. I think it would be best if the discussions were started anew. I certainly have no interest in trying to sort the legitimate discussion from the disruptive one. Bacondrum 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we redact or hide the disruptive comments, so legitimate editors can get back to discussing legitimate issues without having to wade through all those disruptive comments? Bacondrum 01:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the comments justify redaction (see WP:TPO), and attempts to redact them would confuse people reading the responses. You could ask an admin or uninvolved editor to wrap the section with {{Discussion top}}, {{Discussion bottom}}, with reason= requesting a fresh discussion (not "discussion is closed", because I don't think it is). I've made minimal comments myself, but could still be considered "involved", so given the contentious material, I don't want to wrap the discussion myself. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just took a look; it's hard to separate the problematic editors from the rest of the discussion (otherwise I would {{hat}} those parts). But I think Mitch Ames's suggestion is good, I'll wrap that in a moment. --JBL (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Bacondrum 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Disputed 3

Since I made my only edit to this article on 19 January 2021, I have had other things to do. I have now revisited the article and talk page, and am staggered both by the complete deletion of my edit and by the discussion in the talk page.

The only criticisms I can see of my edit are, first, that the criticism section I added was (allegedly) too long, and, secondly, that I am (allegedly) biased because I indicated on the talk page (but not in the article) that I consider the book the subject of the article now to be thoroughly discredited. On the basis of those criticisms, the whole of my edit, including even a statement sourced to The Guardian that that book and its author "... have been targeted by rightwing commentators", was deleted. I consider that deletion to be bad faith editing aimed at making the article misleading, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If the criticism had been good faith criticism, then the editor who deleted my edit would have shortened the edit, not deleted it altogether.

My responses to the criticisms of my edit are these. As a starting point, it seems to me that there are strong similarities between the author of the book the subject of this article and the now thoroughly discredited author David Irving. In each case, the author had not been trained as an historian, and published a book (in Irving's case, The Destruction of Dresden) that was initially acclaimed and sold very well, but was never treated seriously by academic historians. Further, and more importantly, Irving's book is now regarded as completely unreliable because of Irving's misuse of his sources, and it is increasingly obvious, from the detailed criticisms the book the subject of this article that have been published by several academic historians and anthropologists since late 2019, that that book is similarly unreliable for much the same reason. It is no answer to this to point to an ABC webpage that includes recent praise of the book by an academic who specialises in education, not history or anthropology.

As for the specific criticisms. First, there is good reason why the "criticisms" section I added was longer than the "praise" section: the criticisms are from multiple academic commentators (four in total, one of whom foreshadowed further criticism by two other academic commentators) who criticised the book from differing perspectives that warranted some explanation (for example, at least one of the critics supports the author's general thesis, but considers that the book severely damages that thesis by misusing the sources; another one criticises the thesis on the basis that it is unfair to Aborigines). Where a book the subject of a Wikipedia article has been heavily criticised, and several critics have made a variety of criticisms, it is entirely appropriate that explanations of the criticisms be included in the article, even if that means that the "criticisms" section is much, much longer than any "praise" section. So, eg, and this is in particular a response to the post by User:Laterthanyouthink on 22 January, the article Hitler's War, which is about one of Irving's other books, includes a very long section setting out the extensive and varied criticisms of that book by various academic writers. The last of those criticisms even asserts that the reason that that book appealed to many of its readers was that it told them what they wanted to read; in my view, such criticism is probably equally applicable to the book the subject of this article. As to whether it is appropriate to include lengthy criticisms sections in Wikipedia articles about books or authors, see also Dinesh D'Souza, which sets out detailed information concerning the various trenchant criticisms that have been made about various books that that author has written.

Secondly, it was entirely appropriate for me to state on the talk page my view that the book the subject of this article now appears to be thoroughly discredited, because that is an explanation for my view that the article, before I edited it, was misleading, inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV policy.

I note that the article is now protected, in a form that is clearly not an NPOV form. As I have extended confirmed rights, I am able to edit the article despite the protection. However, at this stage I will refrain from reinstating my edit, which is what I plan to do given that my edit was entirely in keeping with Wikipedia policy and the extensive criticisms set out in detail in the articles The Destruction of Dresden and Hitler's War (about books written by a British author) and Dinesh D'Souza (about an American author who has written several heavily criticised books). My purpose in so refraining is to give other editors an opportunity to explain why the article should continue to be as misleading and contrary to Wikipedia policy as it is now. Any such explanation should also explain what, if anything, the editor plans to do about the extensive summaries of criticisms set out in the three other articles I have just mentioned. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm sorry but I stopped reading at "the author of the book the subject of this article and the now thoroughly discredited author David Irving", which is a pitty because it looks like you were finally getting around to discussing content and sources. I'm sorry your earlier comments got lost in a sea of disruptive edits. Thankfully those being disruptive are now indef blocked. If you have changes you want to make please put forward the specific changes and the relevant sources, and please try to be succinct. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we don't want to discuss anything else but content and sources, and certainly not holocaust denial!?! David Irving has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article, absolutely nothing. Please focus on content and sources, I think everyone at this article has had enough, and again please have mercy on everyone here, make it succinct. Bacondrum 11:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• In regard to your edit that was reverted. Please see WP:NOCRIT "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." Bacondrum 11:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, in relation to articles about individual books:

"quote the opinions of book reviewers. This section should contain a balanced reflection of the reviews. Providing balance is sometimes difficult because some reviews are more critical than others; some reviews may simply state "this book is great" while others may provide detailed analysis about what made the book good/bad. Because this section involves opinions, it should be heavy with quotes and citations."

There is a similar guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response for articles about individual movies.

My edit followed the WikiProject Books guideline to the letter. It identified four academics, in each case either an anthropologist or an historian, who, since late 2019, had published a critique of the book that can be treated as a review. It also identified the affiliations of each adademic, and cited and quoted from all four of the critiques, in a neutral manner. All four of the critiques criticised the book for its treatment of its historical sources, and the critiques did so from more than one perspective. The phrases used by the academics to describe the author's treatment of his sources included "selective quoting", "distortion", and "selective use". Anyone familiar with academic writing would recognise the critiques as damning. Although the added "criticism" section was indeed longer than the "praise" section, the difference in length was not great. There has been no suggestion that my edit is not correctly sourced, or misquotes any of the critiques. Rather, the editors who consider that it should be omitted simply do not want the criticisms to be included in the article, and therefore want the article to continue in its present highly unbalanced form, which is simply not acceptable, and contrary to Wikipedia NPOV and WikiProject Books policy. Finally, David Irving does have a lot to do with this article, because, he, too, has been severely criticised for misusing his sources. The fact that he has also been criticised as a holocaust denier is simply irrelevant to that criticism. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Two very superficial comments: (1) Bringing up David Irving is inflammatory and counter-productive; it is akin to bringing up Hitler as a representative vegetarian, or something. You should drop it (and perhaps apologize for the distraction), not defend it. (2) The guidelines for book and movie criticisms do not endorse separate sub-sections for positive and negative criticism. --JBL (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can include some praise and criticism, but I think lengthy sections dedicated to both are not warranted. Bahnfrend as an experienced editor I think you can do better than Nazi hyperbole and demanding that your content be included. You know better than that. Unless specific edits and sources are part the discussion then the discussion is essentially disruptive. I'm not interested in going through long winded and hyperbolic discussions, it's on you to make your case and your case is unconvincing so far - David Irving? come on. Bacondrum 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

guidelines for book and movie criticisms do not endorse separate sub-sections for positive and negative criticism — Presumably this can be trivially solved by combining the subsections into one section. Using this version as example, we could simply delete the sub-headings "Praise" and "Criticism", and possibly add a single sentence at the top, something like "the book has received mixed reviews". (Perhaps the combined section is too long and needs trimming, but my point is that "separate subsections" should be easily solved and need not hinder the presentation of negative reviews.) Mitch Ames (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I did say my comment was superficial! :) I agree that the structural issue is not hard to solve; the real question is which of the various possible sources genuinely merit inclusion, and how much weight to give them. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's also the issue of due weight, looking at reviews in an impartial manner it is clear that this book is critically acclaimed, has won a great many major literary awards, been adapted for film and theater, schools etc. The critical reception as stands is fairly weighted and reflects the wider critical reception, including giving detractors views due weight. Bacondrum 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms of the book

The article (at this point in time) says "The main criticism of the book by academics has been of Pascoe's claim that since 1880 there has been an academic suppression of alternative historical accounts about Aboriginal peoples' housing, farming and cultivation practices."

But this is not quite true: there has been academic criticism of Pascoe's fundamental point as well. For example, Ian Keen's article "Foragers or Farmers: Dark Emu and the Controversy over Aboriginal Agriculture" (Anthropological Forum, 5 Jan 2021) concludes "while the boundary between foraging and farming is a fuzzy one, Aboriginal people were indeed hunters, gatherers and fishers at the time of the British colonisation of Australia." In my view, a balanced article should reference this article.

There is also an excellent review of the book by Michael Davis in Aboriginal History (Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 195-198). Davis highlights both positive and negative features of the book, praising the fact that Pascoe "has amassed a wealth of evidence to support his contention that Indigenous people, before European arrivals, maintained a sophisticated economy which featured aspects of farming practices and settled lifestyles including permanent settlements with established dwellings" and calling it an "important book," but also concluding inter alia that this "is not new" and that "Dark Emu asks the wrong question. It is not a matter of whether Indigenous peoples were hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists. The point – which Pascoe’s book does make – is rather to re-evaluate the specific nature of Indigenous economies, and to call for a societal re-evaluation that acknowledges the sophistication, complexity and malleability of these economies."

Another balanced review of the book is by Russell Marks in the broadly left-wing The Monthly (‘Taking Sides Over Dark Emu’, 5 February 2020). Marks points out that "throughout Dark Emu, Pascoe regularly exaggerates and embellishes," and gives several examples where Pascoe has misrepresented the sources that he quotes. According to Marks, "such selective quoting creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material."

Marks also touches on the political reactions to the book, which may themselves perhaps be notable, if reliable references on those reactions can be found. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's more like it. Thanks, that makes much more sense than David Irving...and looking over Bahnfrend's additions again, I don't really object to them. I'll admit I was wrong to say the additions were false balance, they're actually reasonable. At the time they were introduced there was two bad actors being super disruptive and in the heat of it all, it looked like someone just adding more negative content, I accept that was not actually the case...then when we come back to it David Irving was suddenly part of the conversation...there's been a lot of argy-bargy on this page. Bacondrum 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I also think your suggested additions would be good. Bacondrum 09:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but of course I can't edit the article. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You could present your proposal here, or in a sandbox in your userspace, Special:MyPage/sandbox, and then invite comments. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Academic criticism

The following paper by Ian Keen (Phd Anthropology, Assoc. Prof at ANU) reads:

Bruce Pascoe's book Dark Emu, which has been a publishing phenomenon in Australia, argues that Aboriginal people were not ‘mere’ hunter-gatherers in 1788, but were farming. This article sets the argument of the book within the context of the views of archaeologists and anthropologists, as well as other historians, about Aboriginal agriculture. Some have argued that Aboriginal people were hunter-gatherers and asked why they did not adopt agriculture, while others have suggested that at least some groups were practicing farming. The article finds that while the boundary between foraging and farming is a fuzzy one, Aboriginal people were indeed hunters, gatherers and fishers at the time of the British colonisation of Australia.

I guess this warrants a paragraph in the Criticism section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:319:C860:B18B:F961:976F:5502 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See above conversation. Bacondrum 02:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Keen's paper (doi:10.1080/00664677.2020.1861538) is now freely accessible. I recommend reading it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

See also:

• Sutton, Peter; Walshe, Keryn (2021). Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate. Melbourne: Melbourne U.P.
• Rintoul, Stuart (12 June 2021). "Debunking Dark Emu: did the publishing phenomenon get it wrong?". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 12 June 2021. Errantius (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a blurb for Peter Sutton's book at MUP. There's also "Anthropologist and archaeologist say Dark Emu was littered with weak evidence and unsourced claims" by Rob Harris at The Sydney Morning Herald (12 June 2021), and "Author Bruce Pascoe's best-selling Aboriginal history book Dark Emu 'debunked' " by Frank Chung, news.com.au (12 June 2021). I suspect there's more to come. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

And also:

• Westaway, Michael; Gorringe, Joshua (18 June 2021). "Friday essay: how our new archaeological research investigates Dark Emu's idea of Aboriginal 'agriculture' and villages". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 June 2021. Errantius (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Westaway, Michael C.; et al. (16 June 2021). "Hidden in plain sight: the archaeological landscape of Mithaka Country, south-west Queensland". Antiquity. first view. Retrieved 18 June 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) (signed on 19 June; forgot to sign on 18 June) Errantius (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Long track record, even handed, editors here may appreciate knowing about this scholarly academic book review by

White, J. Peter (1937–) - Sydney university Dr. 84 yr old veteran of archaeology and editor of this same journal:

• White, J. Peter (15 November 2019). "Dark Emu. Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. By Pascoe, Bruce. Magabala Books, Broome. New Edition, 2018. ISBN: 9781921248016". Book Reviews. Archaeology in Oceania. 55 (1): 63–64. Retrieved 22 June 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

(–not open access – I accessed it through NLA membership.)

Note: the Ian Keen critical article does not have open access either (ATM). Please correct this technicality on its ref. in this article and stated above in talk.

I'm a long time ago former Wikipedia editor (med. sized of ca. 10,000 edits). Out of it now, login not at hand so anon. talk edit here only providing this appropriate ref. by White, veteran archaeologist and scholarly journal editor, who has looked at these topics involved from many perspectives over 50+ years and extensively scholarly published on them. At least since his notable "Neolithic Problem ..." articles in 1968 (Aust. Museum publ) & 1971 (book chapter 14 in Mulvaney and Golson. Aboriginal man and environment in Australia. ANU press.), and their subsequent updates as in 2011 doi:10.18195/issn.0313-122x.79.2011.086-092, and updates of this by further authors eg. Florin & Carah (2018) doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2016.12.033, etc..

Addressing the controversy while remaining measured and enclopedic

Given that the debate over Dark Emu has become a lot more prominent recently, I think to good to start a talk page subsection specifically devoted to it that gives necessary space to the controversy while allowing editors an opportunity to discuss how to best address the now well-established evidentiary issues with Pascoe's book.

To start with, I propose the following addition to the end of the header: :

The accuracy of Pascoe's book has been extensively discussed and disputed in the Australian media and political spheres, and several academic responses have largely rejected Pascoe's thesis that Indigenous Australian society was based on sedentary agriculture rather than on a hunter-gatherer economy (put Sutton & Walshe, Keen and other relevant sources here as footnotes).

Thoughts on this? I think the media debate should needs to be addressed as long as WP:RS is kept in mind: this means basing material on more respected sources like The Conversation, The Age and The Australian and less on sources with a less-established track record of reliability like Quadrant or The Spectator. This is a great resource for a list of RS sources: WP:RSP. The critical thing is keeping it all measured, thoroughly sourced, and in line with appropriate encyclopedic tone as per WP:TONE. Comments, suggestions etc welcome Noteduck (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The debate over Dark Emu has NOT become a lot more prominent recently. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the Sutton & Walshe book is a big enough deal to allude to in the lead. I'd go with:

The accuracy of Pascoe's book has been debated in the Australian media and political spheres. Several academic responses have largely rejected Pascoe's thesis that Indigenous Australian society was based on sedentary agriculture rather than on a hunter-gatherer economy.

--RaiderAspect (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's minor trivia. The book is hugely successful. The opposition to it is gaining no traction. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a full academic response is pretty significant. Federal education minister Alan Tudge now says he doesn't want it taught in schools.[9] A few more expert criticisms: historian Richard Trembath[10] and a lecture by Sorbonne anthropologist Christophe Darmangeat (unfortunately I can't read French, but some of the media sources have referred to it)[11] Noteduck (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The opinions of a Liberal dinosaur count for nothing in debates like this. He is simply pandering to his conservative, right wing audience. He is NOT an expert on Aboriginal history. Fortunately, book choice is one made by state education departments. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have just added to the page then came here to discuss an additional sentence to the lead, and I see the good editors here are already on it. I agree something based on Sutton and Walshe is the lead is warranted, I like either suggested additions above, I do not think describing the debate as extensive is overplaying it. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC).

And I have reverted those bad faith changes. There is obviously no consensus for them. And implying that those who disagree with you are bad editors is not acceptable here. Please read WP:AGF. It's sad that those so desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people are also unaware of Wikipedia's relevant rules, and also choose to denigrate other editors. You MUST await others commenting on your proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48, can I suggest you follow your own advice and read WP:AGF, describing those additions you reverted as bad faith changes is neither constructive nor civil. You seem to be the one who choose[s] to denigrate other editors. Now, I respectfully ask, please enlighten me on what was bad faith about either addition. Cavalryman (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC).

They are bad faith because there is no consensus to add them. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Please direct me to the policy or guideline that states adding reliably sourced, neutrally worded information to an article without first specifically seeking consensus on the TP is considered bad faith. Per WP:AOBF, Without clear evidence ... repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. Cavalryman (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC).

HiLo48 whatever you think of Tudge, you can't write off a prominent politician because of their political affiliation. Please review WP:Encyclopedic style and WP:NPOV. Sutton, Walshe, Keen etc are not "liberal dinosaurs" but respected academics. Another storied academic, Prof Tim Rowse, has described Dark Emu's thesis as "demolished"[12] in the light of Sutton & Walshe's critique. I'd also recommend reading the Good Weekend piece discussing Sutton & Walshe's work before you dismiss it out of hand. I believe the material that you removed should be restored ASAP. If you were referring to my additions when you mention bad faith comments and desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people [sic] I call upon you to please apologise unreservedly and strike through your comments at once. There is nothing in my edits to indicate bad faith or any other bad conduct Noteduck (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus needed to add well-sourced material to any article. In fact, there has been consensus here for some time to include critical reviews. HiLo48's attacks on editors who disagree with them by invoking AGF are self-defeating. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly the time to await the thoughts of other editors. Far too much haste has been involved in these additions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48, the only editor who has objected so far is yourself. I took a cautious and consultative approach by bringing the new material onto the talk page. The new material was immaculately sourced and worded in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Again, I call on you to apologise and strike out your comments above Noteduck (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:DEADLINE. 07:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

please apologise and strike out the comments I indicated Noteduck (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48, please explain to me how quoting a prominent Aboriginal human rights advocate and longtime campaigner for the rights of Indigenous people, particularly Indigenous women and children, is the actions of someone desperate to denigrate Aboriginal people. Cavalryman (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC).

HiLo48, I do not recall having any meaningful interactions with you before now, but you directly accused me of racism with this edit. If you will not do me the courtesy of replying to my enquires I will assume your accusation was an attempted WP:POVRAILROAD and revert you, explicit in WP:BRD is the D. Cavalryman (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC).

Cavalryman in the absence of HiLo48 making an unreserved, substantive apology to both myself and yourself for what are, quite frankly, awful and cruel things to say about an editor who disagrees with them without basis, I agree with your interpretation of HiLo48's behavior as WP:POVRAILROAD. Given that no substantive rebuttals have been offered against the inclusion of the new material and given the concurrence of the opinions of other editors in this thread I recommend restoring the material Noteduck (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Principled editors would now be seeking the opinions of other editors who have been heavily involved with this article in the past. See WP:DEADLINE. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of principles, can we afhere to WP:NPA please? We're all adults, we don't have to call one another names to write an encyclopaedia, surely? Dark Emu has come under considerable criticism for its lack of scholarship. I trust that we can all agree that it cannot simply be accepted at face value, and that well-researched criticism is a necessary component of this article.

HiLo, you seem to be fighting a one-horse battle here. Perhaps your calls for consensus ring a little false given that no other editors are supporting your scorched-earth tactics. --Pete (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization template on this talkpage BRD

Mitch Ames, other interested.

About Undid revision 1015129906 by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) - good faith edit but per Template:Press documentation "Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content. This is especially important on the talk pages of contentious subjects"

The Spectator is perfectly fine for this use, see its WP:RSP entry. It's not poor quality for this context (not saying it's right, I'm saying it fits the template at this talkpage). IMO Quadrant [13] is good enough for inclusion here too (wow, he really likes writing about the topic [14]), neither is a blog or Breitbart. WP gets coverage like this at times, it can be interesting, and this template is not exclusive for "nice" stuff.

Exluding stuff like this seems like bowdlerization. Pinging source/media active editors NewslingerSmallbones if they have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Australian edition of The Spectator is more politically extreme than the British edition and doesn't have a good reputation for fact checking (eg [15]), so the RSP entry isn't useful here. Quadrant has also been held to not be a RS in various discussions across Wikipedia, as noted at RSP. Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Point, though I think not a dealbreaker (apparently they did survive the payout). They are still good for "Peter O'Brien said that" on a WP talkpage, WP:RS is about article-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The particular problem with Quadrant is that most of the people published in it these days are pretty obscure, so it is not clear why their opinion is worth noting in an article subject to WP:BLP, especially given that the magazine's editorial standards mean that what they write can't be assumed to be factually accurate. Independent and reliable sourcing establishing that authors in Quadrant have a noteworthy opinion is needed to guard against this. That the article by Mr O'Brian in The Spectator contains what appears to be several serious slurs directed at Mr Pascoe illustrates why these sources are highly problematical in Wikipedia articles concerning living people, and editors who seek to add such material (instead of material referenced to clearly factually accurate and/or clearly noteworthy commentary) are at great risk of being blocked. WP:BLP is required reading here, and it is important to note that Wikipedia deliberately has quite conservative standards. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree Quadrant is a rubbish source, I still think the opinions are worth including, penned by a now blocked editor, who was having a massive cry about wikipedia. No big deal if they are not included though. Bacondrum 10:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I'm willing to drop Quadrant, it's more iffy. But, "noting in an article/these sources are highly problematical in Wikipedia articles" doesn't apply, this is not article-space. WP:BLP applies, but mentioning (for example) that O'Brian said "It became clear to me that Wikipedia editors are highly partisan and that Bruce Pascoe is a protected species." (Spectator) on a WP-talkpage and linking to the article where he said it is not a WP:BLP violation. WP links Breitbart, OpIndia and Donald Trump's tweets where appropriate, even in article-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to add the quadrant commentary, and a Bolt commentary, but was reverted. I think we should include those and the others you suggested. I agree, they are relevant and interesting. As you said "this template is not exclusive for "nice" stuff". This article became part of the culture war for a moment there, that's worth noting. Bacondrum 09:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Another one, [16] Herald Sun but I can't read it because paywall, so I won't try to add it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the Bolt commentary that I mentioned above. Bacondrum 10:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First up, I'd definitely be less likely to support a link to Quadrant, because according to WP:RSP it is "generally unreliable" vs The Spectator, which is only "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". In both cases Wikipedia is only asserting that "Peter O'Brien said....", which is reasonable on the face of it. However {{Press}} does clearly say "Do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content. This is especially important on the talk pages of contentious subjects", and Dark Emu (book) is definitely a contentious subject. The linked article is more about O'Brien's own editing dispute than the Wikipedia article per se, so while it may be treated as accurate in terms of what O'Brien says, his opinion in this case is clearly biased so not a reliable source on the subject matter - both the Dark Emu book itself, and Wikipedia's editing practices. (Had he been commenting on an editing dispute in which he was not involved, it might be reasonable to link to that, but not when he's commenting on his own edits.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, wouldn't want to give these rather sad commentaries too much air anyways, I can see why it's best not to link. We got a laugh out of it at least. Bacondrum 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am in no way suggesting this should be added to the article in any way, shape or form, but I just found this whilst looking at alternative sources: Peter O'Brien, "REVEALED: Inside the Dark Emu Wiki Wars", I gather from a brief glance in this section that the op-ed (if it could be called that) is a continuation of previous on-wiki conflict? Cavalryman (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No point including it. Basically all the journo is doing is quoting this talk page verbatim. There's no analysis, no added value. Why would we bother mentioning in our article that we discuss it on the talk page? --Pete (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely, no encyclopedic value. It’s the first time I’ve seen a TP discussion in the “news”, but you wouldn’t sell many newspapers reporting on exchanges in the topic areas I usually edit. Cavalryman (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC).