Talk:Voorbij Mars en Venus: Difference between revisions

From The Sannyas Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 51: Line 51:
hm, yes, i assumed that this copyright notice was by OIF, but that was probably put there by the Russian publishers and they would indeed write something like "by Osho". so yes, i got overheated again ;)
hm, yes, i assumed that this copyright notice was by OIF, but that was probably put there by the Russian publishers and they would indeed write something like "by Osho". so yes, i got overheated again ;)


the page for working titles is a great idea. i would like to call it [["Orphaned books"]] and on it we could list "working titles" incl those that were later published under a different name / foreign translations with no known English or Hindi original / very dubious titles that we have seen somewhere but have removed because of lack of references anywhere / any other grey mice...  --[[User:Rudra|Rudra]] ([[User talk:Rudra|talk]]) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
the page for working titles is a great idea. i would like to call it [[Orphaned books]] and on it we could list "working titles" incl those that were later published under a different name / foreign translations with no known English or Hindi original / very dubious titles that we have seen somewhere but have removed because of lack of references anywhere / any other grey mice...  --[[User:Rudra|Rudra]] ([[User talk:Rudra|talk]]) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
----
----
Sugit, for Russian edition "Открой реальность вне ума" I uploaded 3 three pages in order:  
Sugit, for Russian edition "Открой реальность вне ума" I uploaded 3 three pages in order:  

Revision as of 06:49, 13 February 2017

Hello. Do you know anything about a edition "Beyond Mars and Venus"?

Probably also Russian edition translated from this "Beyond Mars and Venus". I could't find informations about this book, only I found audiobook "Beyond Mars and Venus. An Enlightened Vision of the Differences Between Men and Women. Insights For A New Way of Living" (see link1 and link2)., which published by Osho International, New York in 2004. Also I know what a Spanish edition translated from "Beyond Mars and Venus". Also on Oshoworld.com has a article with name "Beyond Mars and Venus" (link3)--DhyanAntar 07:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC). On first look it is other text! It is from From Sex to Superconsciousness, Ch. 2 (I didn't check it).--DhyanAntar 07:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


No I don't know about that English title. It is not unusual that compilations would be made (first in English) and that those would be used for translations before any English publication is made. An other example: Emoties. --Sugit (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


In my opinion this English book title does not exist and has been faked to allow the insertion of a copyright notice. Look to a copyright notice of Мужчина и женщина: мир в гармонии и целостности!--DhyanAntar 11:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


I am not sure about that. Osho International Foundation claims copyright, just like anywhere else. They may not be right about that. But to say a "title is faked to claim copyright" is -I think- not right. A title can be just a "working title" for a manuscript. Having an English title or not is irrelevant for a copyright claim.

Still, it is unusual how it has been written in Bezmolvie uma. Kak mysli zaslonjajut real'nost' (Безмолвие ума. Как мысли заслоняют реальность), with first a © , then the title, and then afterward OIF.

By the way, in that book, please move any comments to the discussion/talk page, I mean "(Please note that this English book title does not exist and has been faked to allow the insertion of a copyright notice.)". If you have comments, then on the page itself you can put a reference with See [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|discussion]]. This way the page itself is clean and objective. --Sugit (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Sugit, most likely in some ways you're right. I need somehow to tell a reader of wiki about the lack of English book. Thank you very much for important note, I'll do it!

I don't have any information on this issue. And without any facts, it will be the guessing on a coffee thick. This idea about "faked to allow the insertion" was suggested by Rudra. It needs to ask him about it. How can we know about what is real working title?

"Still, it is unusual how it has been written in... with first a © , then the title, and then afterward OIF." - this is no time, look to next pages wich have the same promlems, which I have to decide: page2, page3, page4.--DhyanAntar 17:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Ah, Rudra! Sometimes, about © and (TM) he gets a bit overheated :-) I don't think that "faked to allow the insertion" is correct, they just mention a working title of the English compilation concept, nothing wrong with that. Anyway, it is a comment, so it goes on the discussion-page. But what is important is: what is written in the book, that is what we should report. E.g. in my example Emoties, this English title is mentioned in the book, and this is written in the "translated from" section.

What goes on the main book-pages is what is literally in the book. We always try to use the same order of stuff. We have a page with examples here: Help:Contents Books.

So on the line with Edition notes first the literal(!) edition remarks, and e.g. number of copies. Then all literal copyright remarks.

Then on the next lines comes size = height x width x thickness ; then all the sannyasins that worked on it ; then the external parties like printed by etcetera. Then the author of the introduction, flap text. Sometimes there is a dedication mentioned. All literally how it is mentioned in the book-edition. --Sugit (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


I would like to ask how you are and I will know what it is the REAL working title of a publication and not something else? Without facts we can assume anything that makes our mind. It is not a fact, and I don't like the facts.

I often don't have a real book in front of me, only various informations about an edition. And it's hard to find: names translators, editors, notes about copyrights and, of course, one of the main thing, an english title of edition wich was translated into Russian (in my example). All right, I just won't be use any hypothesis and speculations. In Moscow and Saint Petersburg it is great libraries, but I can't go there, unfortunately. However, these two libraries (RSL and NLR appropriately) have websites with a small description of the right books, but they are also incomplete and don't have the scanned main pages of editions. I use these sites to check the wiki pages.--DhyanAntar 10:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Well... Firstly, In copyright law, there is no such thing as a "working title". you can say "© Osho International Foundation Switzerland, 1975." which means you own the copyright to the original text since 1975, but you can't just claim copyright for something that does not exist. i'm not saying OIF would never do this, but i can't recall a OIF copyright notice for a fictitious book.

secondly, i deemed this copyright notice a fake because it attributed the copyright to Osho, something OIF would never do, even while he was still alive.

thirdly, and i'm not sure if that was discussed before, i think if the book says "Translated from Mars and Venus" and Mars and Venus does not exist, then that note should stay in the Edition notes section and is not be placed in the Translated from section. there we only have links to real existing books. --Rudra (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Rudra, that phrase "translated from - English : Beyond Mars and Venus" comes literally out of the book. I would say leave it there, and add the reference (**) to the talk page. There may be more instances of a "working title", and that seems a good way of keeping texts of translations together. Removing it is in my opinion not helpful at all. If you want, we can make a page for such working titles, as we do with the non-published darshan diaries.
  • Indeed copyright can probably only be legal for a published text. For this Dutch book, that is the case. But for the book(s) that DhyanAntar is mentioning, there seems to be something strange: a copyright notice like this "© The Unwawering Mind. ..., by Osho 2004, Osho International Foundation, Switzerland." So that © seems to refer to a book that has not been published. But where does that text come from: is this really the literal text that is written in the colophon of the book?
  • Rudra, where is there an instance of copyright attributed to Osho? I do not understand that part of the discussion. If I read DhyanAntar's pages, I see only copyright attributed to OIF (for the Russian title. That there is an English (working) title, seem irrelevant to me. And I interpret "by Osho" as a claim of authorship, not of copyright.

Let's try to discuss very careful here, otherwise we will only get more confusion. --Sugit (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


hm, yes, i assumed that this copyright notice was by OIF, but that was probably put there by the Russian publishers and they would indeed write something like "by Osho". so yes, i got overheated again ;)

the page for working titles is a great idea. i would like to call it Orphaned books and on it we could list "working titles" incl those that were later published under a different name / foreign translations with no known English or Hindi original / very dubious titles that we have seen somewhere but have removed because of lack of references anywhere / any other grey mice... --Rudra (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Sugit, for Russian edition "Открой реальность вне ума" I uploaded 3 three pages in order:

  • page II

    page II

  • page III

    page III

  • page IV

    page IV

  • --DhyanAntar 08:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


    Ah yes, so indeed the copyright is literally as stated. By the way, if possible could you scan with a bit more pixels? The pages are difficult to read. We usually use 120 dpi. --Sugit (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


    Unfortunately I only have a pdf file, the book itself is not on hand. I uploaded images. Here is page 4: File:Ru otkreal04.pdf in the PDF, the readability is much higher.--DhyanAntar 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


    I changed page IV of the pdf into a jpg. I usually do it like this: open the PDF, select all of one page, copy to clipboard, open IrfanView, paste clipboard into IrfanView, check DPI (Control-R) and set to 120 DPI, save. --Sugit (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)