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.

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 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, see also , 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).
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg 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)
 * A bizarre response. I was asking for the page to be semi-protected, not unprotected. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2021 (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)
 * Hello and thank you for your comment. What are you proposing?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP is proposing to remove all content critical of the subject, regardless of its sourcing and of Wikipedia policies. Obviously, that is not going to happen. --JBL (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sadko At its minimum, my propsal is exactly what I already did: removed nonsensic sentence in the lead paragraph and defamatory cathegorisation of life and work of this writer.


 * @JBL To you, lies and defamations are critical of the subject. Poor you! Regardless sources and of Wikipedia policies? You know what are the sources here? You are qualified to talk about Wikipedia policies?--212.95.5.173 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you rephrase any "improper" statements/material here on the TP, and that we see if it's okay. Blunt removal can not pass, style tweaks - can.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  13:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blunt removal of what? What is the other way as to the cathegorisation for example?--212.95.5.173 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Two not-yet-used recent sources
See: The first one appears to be about the question of Wongar's identity; the second (despite the quest for identity theme in its title) looks more likely to be setting that question aside and just analyzing the content of Wongar's writings. I haven't read more than the abstracts of these so I have no opinion yet on what they might add to what we already say, but worth looking into, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the first one is about transmesis - the term coined by T. Beebee. It stands for metaphorical conjunction of mimesis and translation - a term used to explain B. Wongar's writing style. In other words, the term is about the representation of the translator or translation (both as a product and a process) in a work of fiction. As to the B. Wongar's identity T. Beebee doubts that Sreten Bozic is the writer's real name (wrong!).--Bocin kolega (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

POV, UNDUE
I do agree with three anonymous users that these two statements Wongar has received criticism to the point of being labelled a fake, literary hoax and accused of cultural appropriation.[5][6][7] Australian novelist and playwright Thomas Keneally has said, "Time might prove him to be a highly significant Australian writer, but his deception has soured his reception in the English-speaking world." do not belong to literary criticism but this type of politically correct disqualifications shall be explained in more details in the biography.

As to the Keneally's statement above, B. Wongar IS a highly significant writer and English-speaking world is much larger than Australia and possibly plus UK. I do not see any kind of "his decepion" souring his reception in Canada and USA.

Keneallys disqualifications of Wongar's work are based purely on the "faked" identity, the author's pen name B. Wongar. These disqualifications are based on politically corect idea of writer's identity based on blood-ethnicity-geography origins. We have to understand that B. Wongar was a sort of political disident, someone who photographed and wrote several books about destruction of the Australian Aborigines population and their natural habitat, violating that way Australian Atomic Energy Act. That made him the state enemy and an evil man who was not allowed to publish anything in Australia in 1980s.

We have a number of works published in Autralia and worldwide rejecting the blood-ethnicity-territory based identity of an artist. Here are two of them elaborating the abovementioned rejection.

Mudrooroo:A likely story:Identity and Belonging in Postcolonial Australia by Maureen Clark, Peter Lang, 2007 p 39


 * Whatever their motivations might have been, there is little doubt that Bozic, Carmen and DUrack promoted and sold their creation as work of Aboriginal Australian srtists, perpetuating the white imperialist habit of wringing cultural wealth from conquered people. Such cultural misappropriation is far from a recent phenomenon ... What is comparatively new however, is the broad public outrage of Indigeneous groups concerning a double standard linked to the issue of proof of Aboriginal identity. Presently, the criteria accepted as relevant to the question of Aboriginal belonging are threefold: one must have Aboriginal genealogy; one must self-identify as being Aboriginal; and one must be recognised and accepted by the Aboriginal community as being a person of Aboriginal descent. Such criteria relate to how Aboriginal persons are identified under The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commision Act 1989.


 * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commisioner, Michael Dodson, sees as both insulting and unjust the continuing expectation that Australia's Indigeneous peoples must authenticate their Aboriginality and be recognised according to non-Aboriginal perceptions and conceptions.

"Faking Translation: Derivative Aboriginality in the Fiction of B. Wongar". Transmesis: Inside Translation’s Black Box by T. Beebee, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 193–216.
 * Writing on the Wongar controversy, Roland Boer agrees with Mudrooroo that identity is constructed rather than inherent, but notes that the problem that arises from such a stance is that “once we understand the constructed nature of terms such as ‘European,’ ‘aboriginal,’ ‘white,’ ‘black,’ ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘English,’ ‘Serbian’ […] then we are left with nothing more than their names. […] Why is it that nominalism and essentialism seem to be the only two options available for us at this postcolonial moment?” (124). Could translationism be that missing third option? We do not test the competence of translators by their origins, but only by their ability to communicate bilingually and biculturally. The translator, as we have seen in previous chapters, can be homo sacer, an exile from both source and target cultures — a designation that seems to literally hold true for Wongar. I would argue, then, that Wongar’s fiction is essentially a translation project, and that our perspective on the issue of its legitimacy should be filtered through the notion of transmesis.

Bottom line: In order to improve tih biography, separate aestethical, humanitarian, and antropologic values of Wongar's work from politically correct disqualifications of the same. Do not delete these disqualifications, rather put them in proper context and do not put them into the intro paragraph, by UNDUE rules.

@Xxanthippe You tagged the existing text with The biography needs to be cleaned up to indicate that the entire backstory is based on (some of) his own claims. I'm not sure what are you aiming at. I see some autobiographical data (are they "his own claims"?) which are quite legitimate content here since the same data are accepted, questioned or not, by several authors, in biographies, essays, and documentaries.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here?
Why this article is citation-needed tag bombed?

The citation-needed at ...banned him from journalism for life makes no sense. It was covered by A Petrovic's article. I've added as a reference an article from Vecernje novosti dayly.

The Božić lived with tribal Aborigines for ten years. is again covered by A. Petrovic's article and the abovemenitioned Vecernje novosti article.

For the ...it heralded a new genre of creative writing. I've attached T. Keneally article. What was reason for not accepting it?

The  ... including the sole copy of the manuscript of his new novel Raki - is covered by R. Pullan's article. What was reason for not accepting it?

Wongar's books have been translated into 13 languages with over one million copies sold (as of 2006) That what Meyer says on p. 149. Why not to verify it in order to avoid nonsensical tag?

Wongar's biographical credentials to the extent that it eclipses any review of the fictional texts as part of Australian writing Sneja Gunew says so in the attached reference. Then what and where is the issue?

--Bocin kolega (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Refs
This article at Museums Victoria is a good profile. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think all of this publication can be relied on as some of it originates from Wongar/Bozic himself, a famously unreliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC).
 * The Xxanthippe's claim above is baseless. Their claim is a kind of censorship. Much of interviews, documentaries about Wongar's life, contents of literary reviews/appraisals of Wongar's work, biographies/notes, essays are "originated" from Wongar and still valuable input there. Should be all awards Wongar won questioned as an "unreliable" source for being "originated" from Wongar himself? A source, its reliability, shall be confronted by another source - not by personal editor's opinion.--Bocin kolega (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

new thread
There is a new thread on Wongar here. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC).
 * The thread is full of baseless attacks on me. For the attackers Presumption of innocence is not mandatory there. I started that thread and for the reason mentioned, abandoned it.--Bocin kolega (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs semi-protection Comment
This BIO is subjected to POV edits by spa IPs which has surpassed 3RR. Semi-protection is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC).
 * and has now been granted. Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

NPOV and BLP issues
This claim

The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation.[5][6][7][8][9]

makes no sense to me. Sources 8 and 9 are actually rejecing the claim, source 5 is quite different type of disqualification of Sreten Bozic Wongar (SBW). If we go to google scholar we’ll learn that the source 5 is cited 12 times but the authors citing 5 never mentioned SBW ie. ignored accusation of SBW as a fake author exploiting ethnicity and victimhood. So the disqualification of SBW as a credible and respected author worldwide found in 5 shall be thrown away, as a marginal opinion, for violating BLP. Claims about the hoax and cultural appropriation are coming from the colonial mindset of the white settler Australians who gave their definition of the Aboriginality, rejected by Australian Aborigines ("We know who are we"). This definition is lawful in Australia but Aboriginality of anyone is strictly private. Only in a few very specific cases the government might ask Australians to prove their Aboriginality and these cases are not applicable to the literature at all.

We have to know that SBW was an anthropologist and writer persecuted, jailed and interned from Northern Territory to Gippsland near Melbourne for writing about annihilation of Australian Aborigines and destruction their native land by the colonial rulers, mining and nuclear experiments on open. In order to prevent him from further writing about this misfortune which hit Aborigines and silence him, SBW was disqualified as an outsider not allowed to do what he was doing. That way some white Australian journalists, bureaucrats and even some writers tagged him as a fake, insincere, one who appropriated Aboriginal culture. These people were minority, politically motivated and not interested in the true values of the SBW literature.

Australian Aborigines accepted SBW as one of them. SBW collaborated with Aborigine’s artists, was accepted at Aborigine’s Monash University as a writer teaching creative writing. Outside Australia SBW was accepted as a great writer of unique writing style, his books were translated into many foreign languages, he won many prestigious awards in his native country (4), UK (1) and in the USA (2). In Australia, persecuted and interned, he was not able to publish his books in 1980eth. At the end of 1980ieth, supported by a number of Australian writers, S. Becket and A. Paton, SBR was accepted as a great Australian writer, awarded 7 times as a novelist and short story writer and once as a translator.

Bottom line. (NPOV) I found numerous short biographies not mentioning accusations and disqualifications SBR was facing in 1980eth. If still wanting to have these accusations and disqualifications in this biography then, please, put them into the context of the politically motivated attacks on him he suffered that time. --2A02:AB88:598D:6680:5409:5C52:1F93:76B1 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Which of his books were translated into Hungarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.126.168 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @2A02:AB88:598D:6680:5409:5C52:1F93:76B1 Some of your concerns are correctly addressed in the Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia biography of this writer. It's funny and, at the same time, interesting to see that this article is listed as a sole reference there (B. Wongar Wikipedia (Text) CC BY-SA)--Bocin kolega (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. User:Bocin kolega has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC).