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