Talk:Param Vir Chakra

	Param Vir Chakra has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 9, 2017 Good article nominee Listed January 11, 2018 WikiProject A-class review Approved
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 13, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military decoration, has been awarded 21 times, of which 14 were made posthumously?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Asia's "Asian 10,000 Challenge", which started in October 2016 and is still continuing. You can help! Orders, decorations, and medals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. India GA‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in June 2016. Military history: Culture / Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 Decemmber 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

• some portion of the article appears a copy of (http://www.indianchild.com/Param_Vir_Chakra.htm) - or is it vice versa?--Bhadani 17:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• http://www.rediff.com/republic/2000/jan/28param.htm contains the same stuff and came out in 2000 Tintin 16:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Monier-Williams's Sanskrit dictionary, [1] is referring to a heroic person and is not a word for "brave". Also, [2] has a variety of meanings - "in the highest degree" would appear to be the most suitable to use here. --Grammatical error 17:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• THanks for your comments. While what you say does hold true, I feel it is the usage over here that merits more attention. Anyway, I think it is just more than the two of us who should discuss and settle this. In my view and purely from usage perspective, Parama Vira, does refer the the ultimate brave rather than hero of the highest degree. Jordy 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you spelt it correctly whilst the title of the page and the reference to it are spelt incorrectly. It is Parama Veera Chakra not Param vir chakra. Can someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss the translation here but it doesn't seem to be in the article (unlike Maha Vir Chaka which is translated in the introduction). Although I realise that adjectives can be very hard to translate literally, I'd like to see an agreed English translation Epeeist smudge (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a large gallery of fair use images from this page. Please note that galleries of fair use images are not permitted. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 for a lengthy discussion on the issue. BigDT 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is observed that two of the persons awarded this medal are having the same serial number. So one of them must be incorrect. I do not have the correct data to amend the same.59.92.192.250 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shibukottiyoor (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)it is not necessarily to redirect, you may be redirect the page "Param Vir Chakra" to " Param veera Chakra" since this is the exact name[reply]

Shibukottiyoor (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC) we donnt know who has given the direction " Vir Chakara" instead of "Veera Chakra". so please change it.[reply]

Jai Hind

So

If you think that a file is in the public domain, then you need to provide evidence that the file is in the public domain. Providing a bogus claim will of course not help you. --

Stefan2 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You have done what you had to do. I or another user will reupload them when we have the required info.

Stefan2, now that you have spent a whole day disrespecting our war heroes, please go away.Myopia123 (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Stefan2, your latest nominations for deletions are invalid. The infobox says clearly that Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911. STOP EDIT WARRING!Myopia123 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not correct. See

w:WP:URAA

, which tells the correct rules:

• 50 years from creation for photographs created before 1908.
• 50 years from publication for other photographs published before 1941.
• 60 years from publication for other photographs.

Additionally, Wikipedia is not hosted in India but in the United States. Indian law is null and void outside India. As you can see from the warning at the bottom of {{

Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Do they teach you Math where you are from? 1948+60 is 2008. If someone dies in 1948, then it was obviously published before then. Therefore, it meets the 60 years from publication, which you have apparently pulled out of your ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopia123 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLOCKed for such abusive talks. Also, do not erase article talk page discussions like you did here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This user has been extremely aggressive and rude with me on the Commons pages. Another editor took some time to point out correct pages where the rules of Commons & Wikipedia(Copyright versus fair use) were described in detail. If that had been done instead of aggressively going after pictures that I had uploaded and getting into legal arguments with me on pages on Commons, none of this would have happened because I would have found a compromise solution that was suitable for all parties, which I did. That is why I deleted the RfC because I got the information that I needed but thank you for pointing out it is not done.Myopia123 (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could more experience editors please comment.Myopia123 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the status of the first five recipients. I have accepted that I cannot prove the copyright status of the remainder (for the time being).Myopia123 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably ask

User:Stefan2 Staglit (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

So Shiv Aroor from | Live Fist Defence recently emailed his OTRS permission to use this image [4] to the permissions email account on commons. The image is to be used on the pages of the three living PVC recipients. However, the images I uploaded on commons have all just been deleted. What now? Do I need to reupload it with the ticket number or what?Myopia123 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the permission is valid, someone should undelete the file once the permission has been processed. --

Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Param Vir are not real words. They maybe some variant of the actual Sanskrit words. Should be Parama Veera or Vira Chakra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.177.171 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was copyediting, I noticed that several parts from the lead were exactly repeated throughout the article, so I removed duplicates. CoolieCoolster (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry my bad. I have self reverted. Thanks for your copy-edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is
  military decoration
  awarded for the highest degree of valour or self–sacrifice in the presence of the enemy."
  • Is there more than one award for the highest degree of valour or self-sacrifice? Or is there an non-defining relative clause that has not been separated by a comma?
  • What do the terms "highest degree," "self-sacrifice," and "in the presence of the enemy" mean? They might belong to the typically ceremonial language the award citation uses, but what do they mean in
    WP:NPOV
    language?
• "Literally meaning "Wheel of the Ultimate Brave", it is similar to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. (cited to a high school education publishing website, NCERT, and Priya Aurora (27 December 2013). "7 Facts Average Indian Doesn't Know About Param Vir Chakra". Topyaps. Retrieved 4 September 2016.."
  • The (present) participle clause "Literally meaning ..." applies to the award's name (in Sanskrit or Hindi), not to the award itself, the reader expects "it" to also mean "the award's name in Sanskrit," and is confused when the name is being compared to the VC or the Medal of Honor.
    • Corrected this bit. Look if is OK. Regards,
      talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • In any case, why does a reader need to know the "literal" meaning of an award's name, and not the transformed, figurative, or metaphorical meaning, especially when the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary defines "chakra" in this latter sense to be "medal," and "param" to be highest?
    • The "Chakra" doesn't mean a "medal", but a "wheel". "Vir" means "bravery" and "Param" means Highest or its synonym ultimate. So I think that satisfies the meaning. Regards,
      talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Why is an interpretation offered at a website of the government of India the touchstone of the (award) name's meaning? Where are the secondary sources that have been vetted for scholarship?
    • Provided a book reference. Regards,
      talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • According to whom is it similar to the medal of honor or the VC, and in what manner is the award similar?
    • It is an equivalent being the country's highest military honour, so as the Medal of Honour and the VC. Replaced "similar" with "equivalent". Regards,
      talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now templating the article for some of the issues I have outlined above. If I can pick so many errors in just two setences, what is the guarantee that the rest of the article is reasonably error-free? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these must be taken care during the GA review. Please feel free to post your comments. Regards,

talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

PS I am going to work and won't be back on WP until the afternoon. I request that the template not be removed in my absence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I am back now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will get back to these comments shortly. Regards,

talk • mail) 14:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk • mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that an editor has removed the templates without explaining here why. There are discretionary sanctions in India Pakistan related articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain exactly why - those templates no longer apply to the article. I read through this discussion prior to removing, and I looked over all of the prose in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Please tell me how my objections have been answered. It is not enough to claim that the literal meaning of the medal's Sanskrit name is "Wheel of the Ultimate Warrior." You have to explain what it means. What after all is the wheel of a warrior? Is the warrior riding the wheel? It doesn't make semantic sense. Obviously, that is not the meaning, literal or metaphoric. The sources are shabby. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't require the templates that were put up, though. It might necessitate a GAR if it can't be resolved, but that specific issue is not a grammatical one or one of trivia, just something that needs clarification. And one problem shouldn't require article-wide templates.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have to run. I see issues of syntax and coherence in pretty much every sentence, but I'll think about it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk • mail) 13:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk • mail) 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]