Template:Did you know nominations/Venu Chitale
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Venu Chitale
- ... that during the Second World War, BBC Radio broadcaster Venu Chitale (pictured) taught British listeners vegetarian cooking at a time when meat was rationed? Source: "In one broadcast...Chitale shared with her British listeners some Indian vegetarian recipes – including one for mashed potatoes and beans – to help them tide over wartime austerities." [1]
- ALT1 ... that BBC radio broadcaster Venu Chitale (pictured) taught listeners how to cook without meat when it was rationed during the Second World War? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Reviewed: Chicago Radio
- Comment: Still working on the article, but can review
5x expanded by Whispyhistory (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 07:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC).
- Interesting life, on fine sources, no copyvio obvious. Both hooks say the same, I prefer ALT1. Can we include "from India" in case the image is not taken. But better to take the licensed image closely related to the hook ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy, Whispyhistory, Gerda Arendt, and Theleekycauldron: I've reopened this as I have a query about the image - the licence template at File:Venu Chitale at the BBC.jpg says that the image must meet one of these conditions:
- A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952); or
- A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952); or
- An artistic work other than a photograph (e.g. a painting), or a literary work, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952).
Which of these three have you deemed it to meet? And how sure are we that (a) its author is unknown, and (b) it was made public more than 70 years ago or that it was never made public? The template also says "If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was", which doesn't seem to be present at the moment. It's a lovely image, so would like to be able to use it in the hook, but we need to make sure it's properly licensed. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Amakuru:... I don't know how to do this. The image is no where to be found in any book or other publication until the recent appearance in the BBC one. There is no author linked to it and it was certainly taken before 1947, when she left England.The BBC archives do not include this image... if still a problem, then leave it out. It would appear to come under A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1952 unless any one else knows otherwise, in which case leave it out. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could use this one from 1944 (with the watermark removed) which must have been taken by an anonymous BBC photographer. It would appear to qualify under either the first or second points. I don't think we are required to take heroic measures to identify the photographer, and I doubt the BBC would know now. Even if we identified the photographer, the copyrght, now lapsed, would have belonged to the BBC, not the photographer, and they in fact claim that it did or does on the page. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have swopped the image for the one mentioned in my post above for which we are sure of the source. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Amakuru: Are you happy with the new image which as a publicity image must have been published in 1944 or thereabouts and certainly before 1952? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am happy with it, but would prefer to have it in addition, not replacing the other, because the discussion above makes little sense without seeing about what and linking to its description. That's for next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is this ready to go? @Gerda Arendt, Amakuru, Philafrenzy, and Whispyhistory: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- _ yes for me, as I said above --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good by me too. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- The non-placement of this tick likely has delayed placing this page into a hook for some time. Oops. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the licensing of the image. The first one looks fine, but the second one says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1927." The image is from 1944. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy:...might know @SL93:. Whispyhistory (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Or that "the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer". I have removed that tag pending the insertion of an alternative US licence. If we can't find one then we will have to proceed without the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)