# Talk:Param Vir Chakra

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)
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)

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)

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)
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) 
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)

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)

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)

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 
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.
Jai Hind

So Stefan2 went through each and every one of the portraits of the Param Vir Chakra receipients that I had uploaded from the Indian Army website [3] and set them up for speedy deletion. I am new to Wikipedia and while I am sure that these are in the Public Domain, can someone please upload them in the proper format with license and other info?Myopia123 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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 {{PD-India}}, you must indeed demonstrate that the photograph was published before 1941. If not, then the photograph is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years from publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
@Myopia123: please read WP:Civility and follow it before you are 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)
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)

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

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)
You should probably ask User:Stefan2 Staglit (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

If the permission is valid, someone should undelete the file once the permission has been processed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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) 

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Param Vir Chakra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814213528/http://knowindia.gov.in/myindia/myindia_frame.php?id=13 to http://knowindia.gov.in/myindia/myindia_frame.php?id=13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

‘The PVC is India's highest military decoration’ – If it is highest award on the Indian Order of Wear suggest deleting the adjective 'military'. Since the PVC is the highest award for wartime gallantry why is there a need compare it to the US MofH since many countries have such awards. It would be relevant to note it was replacing the British VC, awards are gazetted in the India Gazette and the colour of the ribbon is similar to the VC. The Order of Merit was introduced twenty years before the first gallantry awards for British forces including the VC. ‘During the First World War, the awards were classified based on the English traditions for senior officers, junior officers, and enlisted men’ – a deprecating comment about UK (not English) honours, poorly expressed and inaccurate. ‘Post independence, the British honours and awards informally came to an end’. – how do you end British awards informally since they are recommended by the independent Indian Government and gazetted in the London Gazette. ‘However, attempts to institute new awards for India to honour the war heroes of the 1947–1948 Indo-Pakistani War failed, as India was still a dominion’ – India was an independent country from 1947. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anthony Staunton: As regards the "dominion" issue, India gained Independence on 15 August 1947 but chose to transition methodically from its previous status as a British colony to dominion during the interim period to sovereign republic on 26 January 1940 when it adopted its Constitution. The explanation in this regard/context is in the text, so what is the issue exactly? AshLin (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
With regard to this comment <<‘During the First World War, the awards were classified based on the English traditions for senior officers, junior officers, and enlisted men’ – a deprecating comment about UK (not English) honours, poorly expressed and inaccurate.>> what would you suggest as a more accurate replacement? AshLin (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This comment needs reliable sources and more knowledge <<‘Post independence, the British honours and awards informally came to an end’. – how do you end British awards informally since they are recommended by the independent Indian Government and gazetted in the London Gazette.>> I will be approaching some experts. AshLin (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)