[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Victoria Cross/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria Cross. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Beharry

The sentence about Johnson Beharry was added at the time of the award, when he was the most recent recipient and the first in a long time. It has survived until now, but given that two other awards have been made since, I think it is no longer worth mentioning here. It is just one of three relatively recent awards, and no longer the most recent. So I've deleted this sentence. Richard75 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar query "in the face of the enemy"

The first line of this article includes the phrase "in the face of the enemy". This is a misquote but it is so common that you seldom see the correct quote used. Since it is not a quote should it have quotation marks? Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly a misquote, but nor -- as I understand it -- is it a quotation. I have removed the quotes. I have also removed the wikilink to combat, as my understanding is that is not what is meant. For example, an unarmed medic can receive the VC for rescuing wounded men in the face of the enemy, without engaging in combat. MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The warrant says "in the presence of the enemy" so I've put that. Richard75 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Webber Harris VC?

I have made a page for Elizabeth Webber Harris who was awarded an honorary VC. Someone here may have some corrections on terminology, relating as to how much of a real VC this was etc. Please be bold. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)).

It wasnt a real VC and certainly not honorary, a replica in appreciation maybe. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, changed to replica. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)).

Source of bronze

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)

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)

The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry

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:

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:

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)

Victoria Cross recipients

(Since the end of World War II)

List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

List of living Victoria Cross recipients
  • 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.
Recipient Service Unit Campaign Location Date(s) Awarded VC
UK CA AU NZ
Kenneth Muir † British Army Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Korean War Seongju, Korea 1950-09-2323 September 1950 † 1951 Yes
Philip Curtis † British Army Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry Korean War Imjin River, Korea 1950-04-2222–23 April 1951 † 1953 Yes
James Carne British Army Gloucestershire Regiment Korean War Imjin River, Korea 1950-04-2222–23 April 1951 1953 Yes
Bill Speakman British Army Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) Korean War Hill 217, Korea 1951-11-044 November 1951 1952 Yes
Kevin Wheatley † Australian Army Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Vietnam War Trà Bồng, Vietnam 1965-11-1313 November 1965 † 1966 Yes
Rambahadur Limbu British Army 01010th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation Sarawak, Borneo 1965-11-2121 November 1965 1966 Yes
Peter Badcoe † Australian Army Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Vietnam War Hương Trà, Vietnam 1967-02-2323 February 1967
7 March 1967
7 April 1967 † 		1968 Yes
Ray Simpson Australian Army Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Vietnam War Kon Tum, Vietnam 1969-05-066–11 May 1969 1970 Yes
Keith Payne Australian Army Australian Army Training Team Vietnam Vietnam War Ben Het, Vietnam 1969-05-2424 May 1969 1970 Yes
Herbert Jones † British Army 0022nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment Falklands War Goose Green, Falkland Islands 1982-05-2828 May 1982 † 1983 Yes
Ian McKay † British Army 0033rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment Falklands War Mount Longdon, Falkland Islands 1982-06-1212 June 1982 † 1983 Yes
Johnson Beharry British Army Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment Iraq War Amarah, Iraq 2004-05-011 May 2004
11 June 2004 		2005 Yes
Willie Apiata
(Victoria Cross for New Zealand) 		New Zealand Army New Zealand Special Air Service War in Afghanistan Kandahar, Afghanistan 2004-06-1818 June 2004 2007 Yes
Bryan Budd † British Army 0033rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment War in Afghanistan Sangin, Afghanistan 2006-07-2727 July 2006
20 August 2006 † 		2007 Yes
Mark Donaldson
(Victoria Cross for Australia) 		Australian Army Special Air Service Regiment (Australia) War in Afghanistan Uruzgan, Afghanistan 2008-09-022 September 2008 2009 Yes
Ben Roberts-Smith
(Victoria Cross for Australia) 		Australian Army Special Air Service Regiment (Australia) War in Afghanistan Kandahar, Afghanistan 2010-06-1111 June 2010 2011 Yes
Daniel Keighran
(Victoria Cross for Australia) 		Australian Army 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment War in Afghanistan Uruzgan, Afghanistan 2010-08-2424 August 2010 2012 Yes
James Ashworth † British Army Grenadier Guards War in Afghanistan Nahri Saraj, Afghanistan 2012-06-1313 June 2012 † 2013 Yes
Cameron Baird †
(Victoria Cross for Australia) 		Australian Army 0022nd Commando Regiment (Australia) War in Afghanistan Khod Valley, Afghanistan 2012-06-1322 June 2013 † 2014 Yes
Joshua Leakey British Army Parachute Regiment War in Afghanistan Helmand, Afghanistan 2013-08-2222 August 2013 2015 Yes

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

  1. ^ Sunday Star-Times (4 September 2011). "US played dirty: Apiata claims". Stuff. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
  2. ^ 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)

Victoria Cross recipients (part 2)

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)

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)

Alleged equality with the George Cross

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)

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)
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)
Is this a safe source? The Banner talk 10:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
Sugar, did not see that. The Banner talk 11:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I will list the unreliable tabloid references, so people can see there is potential for change in the coming days. The Scum use a headline of Queen confirms the George Cross IS on a par with the Victoria Cross – ending years of speculation, which is followed up by the article itself claiming A formal statement due tomorrow will end decades of speculation about the order of the gongs (the original article is timestamped 23 Sep 2020, 22:25, so "tomorrow" appears to have been postponed). The Express claims the Royal Family posted on Instagram: "The George Cross is the equivalent of the Victoria Cross, which rewards actors of bravery on military operations." Curiously I can find no evidence they did post any such thing on Instagram (unless it was posted as a "story" which disappears after 24 hours, which would seem somewhat unusual for an important statement), their George Cross image can be seen here and does not appear to contain the claim the Express attribute to them.

So while it does appear they may be some official announcement in the pipeline (if you believe The Scum) it hasn't happened yet. FDW777 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor at George Cross claims "This has been proved with a UK authoritative letter from the Honours secretariat". Nothing has been "proved" at all, since there is no evidence this "authoritative letter" exists other than someone mentioning it in a footnote. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
FDW777 I apologize for mocking 'joint award' a concept which escapes me. I was not mocking the decision, if it has been made, after 80 years to make them equal or equivalent awards. I was mocking the wording of the possible announcement. Australia in its Order of Wear specifically states that the VCfA and the VC are equivalent awards. If the MOD was serious, all they had to do was to look at the notes in the British Order of Wear for Order of Chivalry. ‘Those individuals who hold both Military and Civil Division Awards in the same Order of Chivalry wear both pieces of Insignia and if at the same level the first awarded is worn first’. It is academic since how likely is someone in the future to be awarded both the senior and junior highest awards. However, my interpretation of the statement is that today in the UK, both the VC and GC are of equal prestige and that the VC is the senior award. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind mocking, I just didn't realise it was as I thought you'd misread the claimed content of the letter. There's certainly room for debate about if they are equal or not, but I believe we jumped the gun several days ago using the apparently unpublished letter as a reference, especially since the public clarification from Elizabeth Windsor has yet to appear. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The content of the unconfirmed reference seems to have it each way. The VC & GC Association gets what it wanted to hear but the VC is senior and is worn first. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


Another round of where the metal comes from

The gun in question

The article currently asserts that "The barrels of the Chinese cannon are on display in the Artillery Hall of The Royal Armouries at Fort Nelson, Hampshire." It also makes various other assertions that the medals were produced from Chinese cannons. However in 2020 Andrew Marriot published a couple of papers throwing XRF at the problem. One of them is Manufactured tradition? – the Victoria Cross which I don't have full access to but Investigating the origin and authenticity of Victoria Cross medals using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry published in nature is open access. It states "Cannon held at Woolwich, often referred to as the “VC guns”, are widely thought to be the source of many issued VCs, though which and how many is not known. Comparison of the composition of these guns to this large set of medals highlights that they are in fact not a close match to any of the VCs nor the sets of metal blocks held by the UK Ministry of Defence at Donnington and by Hancocks." The paper notes that cannon can vary in composition along their length but seems pretty sceptical of this possibility. It also doesn't find evidence for any matches with Chinese cannon. I can't access the sources claiming there is a link but they all predate this paper.©Geni (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_Cross/Archive_4&oldid=1238541548"