Talk:Param Vir Chakra

Issues 28 May 2005

 * 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)

it is supreme hero medal
If you look at Monier-Williams's Sanskrit dictionary, |vira is referring to a heroic person and is not a word for "brave". Also, |parama 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)

Gallery of fair use images
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 Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 for a lengthy discussion on the issue. BigDT 01:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Error observed
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)

Please change the name as Param Veer Chakra
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

Pictures of Param Vir Chakra Recipients on Indian Army Website
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 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)
 * 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)

RfC: What is the copyright status of the images that Stefan2 wants deleted?
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)

OTRS Permissions for Living Recipients Received
So Shiv Aroor from | Live Fist Defence recently emailed his OTRS permission to use this image 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)

Please change title to Parama Vira Chakra
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)

Copyedits and Text Removal
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)

Padding
I suggest that user:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga not add nonnotable trivia, to pad the article, now that it has been deprived of its list of recipients, a list that had stood in this article for upwards of ten years, until a few months ago. I will shortly give notable examples of KCV's nonnotable additions. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please can user: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga explain how the addition: "The award amount and pension benefits are exempted from income tax. In addition, different ministries under the Central Government have various awards for PVC winners. These include a first class /AC 2 tier Complimentary Pass to the awardee along with a companion from the Ministry of Railways, a 75% concession on economy fares by Indian Airlines, and no rental, installation or registration charges for the services of the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam (MTNL) telecommunications service provider. In addition, the awardee is exempted from the toll tax by the Ministry of Transport."

jibes with Wikipedia's guidelines about Encyclopedic content? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The different incentives that the recipients get are definitely related to the award and they are not out of context. The cancellation of the award of is mentioned in the constitution during its formation, so how can that be out of the context. Also in popular culture is generally used in a wide a range of Wikipedia article to mention the subject's usage in media or motion pictures. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not incentives. Besides, if they were, they would be incentives to do what? I didn't say they were out of context.  I asked if the content met Wikipedia guidelines, in particular the one that says: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. (See Requests for arbitration/Rex071404) Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight."  Where is the evidence in the sources that these details have been given weight?  It is the same with the bit about the cancelation of the award.  Where in the secondary sources, preferably peer-reviewed secondary sources, is there evidence that weight has been assigned to something that appears to be a routine clause in any award? I see that you are engaging in edit wars.  I won't revert again.  I have already reverted twice, which is one more than the limit I usually observe, but I'm troubled that a poorly written article has been given the imprimatur of a Wikipedia label that, in my view, it doesn't deserve. I will shortly post some other issues I see with the article.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at the first paragraph, and I already see issues of syntax and coherence that question the GA label. Here are the two sentences of the lead paragraph, and my questions about them:
 * "The Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest 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 ."
 * 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, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually these must be taken care during the GA review. Please feel free to post your comments. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PPS I am back now.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Will get back to these comments shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your former comments, I have removed some content and generalized the paragraph. Also reworded the lead bit, comply with the neutral point of view. Regarding your latter comments, I have addressed them one on one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"The name of the award translates as the "Wheel of the Ultimate Bravery".So, where in is this mentioned?  Could you give me the page number and the precise sentence which states this, as well as the sentences before and after the sentence?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that an editor has removed the templates without explaining here why. There are discretionary sanctions in India Pakistan related articles.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have to run. I see issues of syntax and coherence in pretty much every sentence, but I'll think about it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already mentioned the page number as 42 in the Harv style of citation. The book can be found here. The sentence is 'Tarapore was posthumously awarded the Indian's highest wartime 'gallantry' award, the Param Vir Chakra ['Wheel [or Cross] of Ultimate Brave']'. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that the list of recipients issue is resolved, if you don't have any other concerns please archive this discussion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on PVC article
‘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)
 * 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)

Param vir chakra
🤛🤜🤛🤜🤛😖🤜🤜🤜 111.125.209.149 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)