Talk:Victoria Cross - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
 | Victoria Cross is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Victoria Cross is the main article in the Victoria Cross series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The article gives conflicting information on the source of the bronze used for the VC:
- (Introduction) 'Research has established that the metal for most of the medals made since December 1914 came from two Chinese cannon that were captured from the Russians in 1855'.
- (Manufacture) '… the metal used for almost all VCs since December 1914 is taken from antique Chinese guns, replacing an earlier gun. … A likely explanation is that these cannon were taken as trophies during the First Opium War …'
For consistency, would it be better to replace 'captured from the Russians in 1855’ and insert ‘possibly taken as trophies during the First Opium War.’?
A reference for the origin of the Chinese guns would help - is there one?
Hsq7278 (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2018
- Thanks for spotting that. There's no evidence for Russian cannon, and there are sources for Chinese. I have corrected the article. I'm not aware of any source for the Opium War, but I suppose if we captured them from the Chinese then it was probably in one of the Opium Wars. I'm not sure that's good enough for an encyclopedia though. Richard75 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
There is a another slight inconsistency within the article. In the "Separate Commonwealth awards" section it says that the Australian and New Zealand medals are "cast from the same Crimean War gunmetal as the British VC" RichWA (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The current article starts with:
- "The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest and most prestigious award of the British honours system."
However the British government website does not back up this assertion.
- "Medals: campaigns, descriptions and eligibility". GOV.UK. 12 December 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
It states:
- "The Victoria Cross is the premier Operational Gallantry..."
And also states:
- "The George Cross is the premier award given for non-operational gallantry or gallantry not in the presence of an enemy".
As the government web page:
- "'Heroes' gather for George Cross and Medal commemoration". Defence in the media. 24 September 2015. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
states:
- "Members of the Armed Forces can receive the GC for acts of gallantry not in the presence of the enemy, for example, military explosive ordnance disposal personnel"
So HMG probably considers that with the changing nature of warfare the MC is more likely to be awarded in the future and the British government does not want it implied that helping wounded men out of the line of fire of a robotic machine gun is any less valiant that a similar action against a manned machine gun.
This is not a particularly new position. In this 2006 British Government paper:
- "Fact Sheets - Guide to Honours". Defence Internet. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
It is stated in the paper
- "The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry."
and just a little lower down the same article:
- "The George Cross ranks with the Victoria Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry,"
Because of the different age of the awards one can make a technical argument about precedence, but until a person is awarded both medals this is of academic interest only (angles on pinheads). As it is misleading for those who do not realise that prestige and precedence are not necessarily linked, it should not be presented in the lead, but if it must be mentioned then it should be in the body of the article.
Given the British Government's position what is the source that covers the first sentence in this Wikipedia article? -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
- (Since the end of World War II)
List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign
- 20 individuals (15 UK, 0 CA, 4 AU, 1 NZ) have received the Victoria Cross since World War II.
- † denotes Victoria Cross awarded posthumously. Shown chronologically.
All VC citations of those from the above table show exact dates except for the one from New Zealand, showing only a year. Based on the references provided, I have included 18 June 2004 in the date column for Willie Apiata.
Concerning Willie Apiata's VC citation, writer Nicky Hager says "The most obvious sign of the block on information was that the Victoria Cross citation did not even include the usual details of where and when the act of bravery occurred." Hager uncovered those details and revealed the gunfight occurred in the early hours of Friday, June 18, 2004, in a remote part of dry and mountainous central Afghanistan, north of Kandahar. Continuing, Hager writes, "If there were secrets to protect about the June 18, 2004 gun battle, they were that it had little to do with fighting terrorism or making Afghanistan a safer or better place. In the years following these New Zealand patrols, central Afghanistan became more hostile and dangerous, not less. Willie Apiata was a good guy in a bad war", Hager concludes.[1][2]
References
- ^ Sunday Star-Times (4 September 2011). "US played dirty: Apiata claims". Stuff. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
- ^ Hager, Nicky (2011). Other People's Wars: New Zealand in Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror. Craig Potton Publishing. ISBN 978-1-877517-69-3. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
@Moriori: The above is a wikitable I put together for showing all individuals who have received the Victoria Cross since the conclusion of World War II, which itself is based off of the one at List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. I believe Willie Apiata's article should show the date that is missing from his VC citation someplace in his article. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Another VC list? Please separate British VC and VCfA awards - the VCfA was named in honour of the British VC but is a unique award of the Australian Honours System and should be separate to British VC awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- The above wikitable listing is just for this talk page only with no intention of article inclusion anywhere, only archived history. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I will be removing this claim from various articles. The "reference" provided, Letter from the Cabinet Office, Honours and Appointments Secretariat, dated 17 September 2020
, is not a published reference. The only trace I can find of the text within it is in the Wikipedia articles it has been added to as a "reference". Should this claim have been made in reliable, published, references I have no objection to its restoration, but there is currently zero evidence the "reference" provided meets WP:V. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- The most interesting footnote I have seen in a long time. Where did it come from. I saw some newspaper reports which could be used as a reference but I would love to see the full letter. I laughed at the last sentence 'The George Cross is, however, sequenced in the Order of Wear after the Victoria Cross to acknowledge the historic seniority of the Victoria Cross and for the practical reason that two medals cannot easily be worn". Firstly because it contradicts the equality of the awards and second because every Anzac Day I see many veterans who have only been awarded campaign and service medals manage to wear multiple medals quite easily. My view has always been that both awards have equal prestige but that the VC is senior to the GC. Frankly, with no civilian GC awards for gallantry in the UK since 1976, 44 years ago, and with the last four civilian GC awards overseas, the GC is defunct for civilian gallantry in the UK and is now only for the Military or the occasional UK civilian overseas. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- To be fair you did leave out the last two words of the sentence which were "joint first", details about the Order of Wear can be found in The Gazette or page 27 of the Army Dress Regulations. I did look for references but as of last night but could only find two tabloid newspapers talking about a social media post by Elizabeth Windsor not the 17 September letter, both of which were listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Is this a safe source? The Banner talk 10:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- No. Scroll down to the "Sources" at the bottom.
Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >
FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
- No. Scroll down to the "Sources" at the bottom.