Talk:B. Wongar

Merge with Sreten Bozic

Personally, if this is a pseudonym, then a merge should happen and the name the person is least commonly known as should be a redirect.Garrie 05:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, he only published one book as Sreten Bozic, and quite a lot as Wongar. He is listed as Wongar In the History of Oz Lit text I have at home, so my vote is Wongar. baby_ifritah 12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made the merge, but it appears that some editors are trying to hide his original name. Gillyweed 03:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What's really weird about his "real name", is that it's not a name. It means "happy christmas". Maybe that's a normal name in Serbia, but it seems unusual. It also seems unusual that he should have admitted to his real name and it be such a strange one and nobody noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.2.218.145 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "really weird". The given male name 'Sreten' means a happy man, a man who met God. The family name 'Božić', where the first syllable is stressed and long, means someone whose ancestor was Božo or Boža, which is shorter version of Bogoljub (God loving) or Božidar (God's gift). "Happy Christmas" has similar spelling in Serbian - "Srećan Božić" where the first syllable of "Božić" i.e. Christmas is stressed but short.--37.205.56.244 (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This nonsensic translation the writer's name comes from Helen Frizell

Serbian writer, too

Bozic started his writer's career as a Serbian writer. In addition, his novel Raki is equally about Serbia and Australia. I'd like to have this in the introductory of the article.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Necessary correction

After reading Dingoes Den I was not able to find justification for:

His wife Dumala and the children were to follow but they died from radioactive contamination left behind from Uranium mining, as claimed later in Dingoes Den, his autobiography.[5]

The end of Chapter 12 of the Dingoes Den suggests that Dumala and her children were poisoned and died for drinking water from a poisoned well. If no objection I'd like to update this (death) event properly.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Corrected.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The badly-written paragraph in question

Regarding this edit's infuriating summary:

His autobiographic novel Dingoes Den shows that he was born to father Stevan and mother Darinka. His father was a WWI veteran persecuted by the Tito's Communist regime after the WWII. He had two brothers Milinko and Milosav. He left Yugoslavia for France in 1959. Lived in the Red Cross refugee camp where he learned French, met and introduced J.P Sartre and S. de Beauvoir and published his literary works in French. In 1960 moved to Australia with the French police note where was written that he claimed his name was Sreten Bozic. Married a tribal woman and had two children with her. After being forced to leave the tribal area and move to Melbourne, he bought a piece of bush land south of Melbourne with a small wooden home on that land. That bush property he called Dingoes Den. Tried to get in touch with his tribal family but learned that they all died being possibly poisoned by drinking water from a poisoned well. Some time lived with Prue Grieve never marrying her. Later he married Lynda Bilcich. After her death, he lives on the Dingoes Den bush property with a pack of dingo dogs.

Several sentences in this paragraph assumed prior knowledge. Do readers necessarily know what "WWI" and "WWII" mean? I don’t think so, so the abbreviations are inappropriate.

Several sentences started with verbs, i.e. "Married a tribal woman and had two children with her." Who did? You can’t write a sentence without a subject.

"His autobiographic novel Dingoes Den shows that he was born to father Stevan and mother Darinka." This is not how to source to a book on Wikipedia. And with very, very few exceptions, there is no such thing as an "autobiographic novel" since an autobiography is assumed to be nonfiction and a novel is assumed to be a work of fiction.

“He had two brothers, Milinko and Milosav." Removed because of the word "had." Are they dead? I don’t have access to this book so I don’t know.

"…with the French police note where was written that he claimed his name was Sreten Bozic." Removed because it is so incoherent that I have no idea what the point of it is. Wongar claimed that? Or the French police claimed that? And which French police? Was Wongar’s birth name actually "Sreten Božić?" Is any of this information in the book? Also, the last name was missing the accent marks. "Božić" and "Bozic" are not the same thing.

"…being possibly poisoned by drinking water from a poisoned well." For the most part, good writing will not have sentences which repeat substantial words. This sentence unnecessarily used the word “poisoned” twice.

"Some time lived with Prue Grieve never marrying her." I’m trying not to be cruel here since English doesn’t appear to be your first language, but I’m honestly wondering how you could look at a sentence like that and think it was properly written. I removed it entirely because it had no subject, it was missing at least two commas, "Some time" is uselessly vague, and the whole thing requires more details about Prue Grieve. Her name just appears as if the reader already knows who she is. An immigrant from another country? An aboriginal Australian? A white Australian? And what does she do? Did she and Wongar have children? I have no idea because you left this information out.

The whole point here is that when people tell you that something is badly written, you don’t revert those people and go "how?" It’s not anybody’s obligation to do what I did here. I went way above and beyond. It’s your responsibility to either fix the bad writing or leave the template asking people to try to clarify your text. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Could it be possible to rename this article? I'd like to see Sreten Božić instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, it's extremely unlikely that this article can be renamed as such. He is famous for his writing, all of which has apparently been published under the name B. Wongar.

And while I'm aware of the consequences of removing sourced material, I have to point out two things: one, we have only one source (duplicated for no apparent reason) that claims his birth name is "Sreten Božić" and two, uh, that phrase in both Bosnian and Croatian means "Merry Christmas," meaning it's almost painfully obvious that it's another pen name. I'll look around for a source as to what Wongar's honest-to-God birth name actually is, and if I can't find anything I'll just reinsert Božić. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted myself and sourced to a book by Therese-Marie Mayer because, while it's likely Wongar took advantage of poor record-keeping to give himself an obviously false name, the lack of birth documentation and the documentation supporting his usage of the name from childhood until he moved to Australia mean it's the best anybody can do as far as a birth name goes.

It still isn't really up for discussion whether or not this article can be moved; WP:COMMONNAME still holds. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

"that phrase in both Bosnian and Croatian means "Merry Christmas,"?? No it doesn't. Please, read carefully and in full the first note on this page.--24.135.12.151 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unrepentant hoaxer

I removed

However, Australian author Thomas Keneally found Wongar to be an unrepentant hoaxer[1].

because the "finding" is not elaborated. It's no more than a badmouth considering the well-known facts known about this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.78.167 (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it's just "a badmouth," but it's definitely not fact-based. It really is a simple if/then construction: if Wongar sincerely believes he did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to repent for and referring to him as an "unrepentant hoaxer," which is a term that appeared here in italics even though Keneally didn't call him that, is wrong on both charges. I agree that this claim, sourced to an article which contains not a single piece of text sourced to Wongar in which he calls himself an Aborigine, should be kept out. RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nonsensic tagging

18:16, 26 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+521)‎ . . B. Wongar ‎ (→‎Reception of Wongar's work in Australia) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism).

Is it possible to disable this type of tagging?--24.135.12.151 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Socks?

There may have been sock puppetry in this article Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive. User:Vujkovica brdo has been blocked as a sock puppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC).

The identified sock puppet 109.92.81.133 of User:Vujkovica brdo has continued to edit this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC).

This BLP has been extensively edited by sock puppets, mostly IPs who show apparent COI. I think that after semi-protecting the BLP, it should be stubbified and rewritten with sources independent of Wongar. Wongar has been exposed as a unrepentent hoaxer by a notable Australian literary figure [2], see also Meyer, Therese-Marie (2006). Where Fiction Ends: Four Scandals of Literary Identity Construction. Königshausen & Neumann. ISBN 978-3-8260-3164-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), so sources that just credulously regurgitate what Wongar has told them will not be reliable. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

This is a good suggestion. --JBL (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

request for semi protection Comment Suggestion Comment WikiProject tagging

Extensive editing by banned sock IPs. See history of article. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC).

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. To request page protection, please put a request in at WP:RPP — IVORK _Discuss 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

B. Wongar

Hi. As I stated in my edit summary, the recently (some days ago) added content does not have any source. I have asked the editor who added it to provide sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response a notice is helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

The cn tag is ususally used for unsourced content that has been in the article since a relatively long time. Very recently added content should preferably be removed. Otherwise Wikipedia would be flooded with cn tags. In this specific case, I leave the solution up to you. Do what you feel is better. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks: the material seems well-sourced in the Meyer reference. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

Can you provide the relevant page and quote? Before the text I removed is a sentence added by the same editor. That sentence has a source, Meyer page 132. I checked Meyer on GBs and on that page Wogar is not mentioned. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The extract that you want to delete: Much of this centers around his identify as there are many discrepancies regarding the identify of Wongar in the forewords of his books. In his book "The Track to Bralgu'" the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is part Aborigine, while in his book "The Sinners", the foreword mentions that the author B. Wongar is in fact a mixed race American Vietnam veteran seems to me to be a fair synopsis from Meyer's well-sourced PhD thesis on these literary frauds. I suggest you take the matter up with the person who first inserted the material into the article. I have transferred this thread from my talk page to the B. Wongar talk page, which is its proper home. See the note at the top of my talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC).

I do not want to add or delete anything. I only want to make sure all of content of Wikipedia is sourced to reliable sources. If you can not not provide sources, including the correct pages and quotes, do not add content again. It is disruptive no matter your good will. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Literary fraud? Misappropriations?

Allegations like these are far from sane and are refuted long ago and many times.

Needless to say, B. Wongar is a writer which literary work was recognized and supported by four Nobel prize winners in literature: S. Beckett, J. P. Sartre, H. Boll, P. Handke. In Australia B. Wongar was awarded the highest literary award (Emeritus award for outstanding contribution to Australian literature 1997) in U.S. - American Library Association Award (1982), Pen International Award (1986) In his native Serbia he was awarded an Honorary doctorate at the University of Kragujevac.

B. Wongar is a living person and labelling him as fraudster is highly libelous and a blatant violation of BLP.

It's sad to see that in this kind of defamation of this great humanist and writer are involved men identified by their real full names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

His literary awards does not mean he is above criticism, which he has been, and the article accurately reflects that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Slanderous opinions and defamation are not criticism reflecting anything "accurately". The Takolander & McCooey essay is just on of them. B. Wongar's literature is accepted by Australian Aborigines as a part of their culture. So an opinion (fraud, misappropriation) of very tinny and politically correct white Australia is just a slander, a defamation. Official academic Australia is behind their Emeritus Award for Outstanding contribution to Australian Literature. If you want to get an artistic insight into, and a valid academic appraisal of his work, then turn to de Beauvoir, Boell, or Handke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can cite anything that specifically refutes the criticism in the article, which is well sourced in accordance to BLP rules, please feel free to add it. I'm afraid you do not get to remove criticism of the article subject just because you disagree with it. Let the reader decide its validity. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you thought of putting in a request for renewed semi-protection? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

@Escape Magie Nolan already refuted "criticism". It's already visible in this article. De Beauvoir, Heinrich Boell, Peter Handke did the same indirectly in their forewords to Wongar's books. No one awarded him for appropriations and forgeries, not a single notable publisher would ever put at risk their reputation by publishing appropriations and forgeries. Do not dupe reader by defamation of this writer by insisting on accusations coming from a tiny white Australian minority. Aboriginal culture is not owned by that minority nor Aborigines condemned ever Wongar for "appropriations and forgeries". Aborigines accepted Wongr as a man fighting for their rights.

@User:Escape_Orbit: Serious criticism in literature is neither labelling (fake, literary fraud) nor accusation (appropriation). Keneally is a politically correct writer and critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.206.42 (talk 09:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dignity level

I see that some of “established” editors are interested only in deletion of valid biographical data and posting spiteful labels and accusations. Is it possible, some way, for each of us, to reach a personal dignity level which, at its minimum, allows sensible discussion here?

As we see, in the two anonymous users comments above, literary criticism is above slanders and bad mouthing. We all have to agree to that statement. B. Wongar is, in Greman speaking world, acclaimed and highly respected Australian writer and humanist. The same is true worldwide, even in his Australia, where he was persecuted and ignored in the past. The proofs of such highly favorable acceptance of his work and life worldwide are many, already counted here.

So, the central point in Wongar’s literature is not cultural appropriation and literary forgeries. This nonsense is dutifully addressed earlier and there was no need for new sources stressing the same nonsense. Even Keneally who earlier advocated such nonsense took a step back in the “Double life”. Stressing Keneally’s accusation by adding two more sources just repeating it, makes no sense. The statement “... as well as inconsistencies in the life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary fraud” is, at its best, unqualified opinion.--212.95.5.173 (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)