Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 29 July 2008

	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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 7, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 21, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed June 25, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 7, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted September 5, 2007 Featured topic candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Orders, decorations, and medals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Maintained

Archives

2004–2007

List of museums

The VC page says the Army Medical Services Museum has 22 VCs, but the Army Medical Services Museum page says that it has 23. Can someone correct whichever one is wrong? Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the discrepancy lies in the "Netley VC" (see the recipients section of the article). Or possibly the museum has acquired another since the figures were added to the article. David Underdown (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More museum fun

The QEII Army Memorial Museum is listed as having 11 VCs, which agrees with the number listed here (scroll to the bottom). But the list of the nine stolen the other day does not match perfectly:

My guess is that the QEII website needs updating since they do not include the Upham medals. The 11 number could actually be correct since the Upham medals are owned by the Imperial War Museum and are on loan to the QEII museum. A similar situation could exist for one of the other medals. How is "collection" defined for the article? Those owned by the museum? Or those on loan to the museum? Evil Monkey - Hello 20:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article currently goes by the references. I believe it is done on those on display. I know the Upham medal is owned by the IWM, but is on permanent loan to the Waiourou. Woody (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the number of VCs, the page for Moana-Nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu mentions the QEII museum but does not actually say that his VC was at the museum. Some local (wild!) speculation that as two VCs won by Maori were not taken, it was a political protest. But while two other VCs were awarded to Maori (William Barnard Rhodes-Moorhouse and recently the VC for NZ to Bill Apiata), neither medal was at Waiouru!

So the 11 medals that were at the museum did not include those of Ngarimu (where?) or the 2 on loan; and there were 4 left behind, those of Thomas Cooke (VC), Bernard Diamond (VC), William James Hardham & Percy Valentine Storkey.

Hence the museum was previously holding 13 VCs, of which 2, those of Charles Upham and Percy Valentine Storkey, were on loan.

While the museum looks like a fortress, the thieves got in through a Fire Escape door round the back, which may have had a glass insert (not barred??). Hugo999 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Will clarify that the exact figure was 96 medals stolen Hugo999 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Note see QEII Army Memorial Museum that they have been recovered, with gang involvement Hugo999 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Date contradiction

The confusion comes because although Victoria signed the Warrant on 29/01/1856, it was not gazetted until 05/02, see "No. 21846". The London Gazette. 5 February 1856. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The Gazette itself publishes this Word document which implies that they see the January date as the relevant one. The National Archives pages on the VC also give the January date primacy (the website seems to be slightly malfunctioning just at the moment). Given this, I tend to think we should give the January date in both the lead and the infobox, perhaps with some explanation in the article body. David Underdown (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just took the 29 as the correct date given the sources. (I checked Ashcroft who cites the archives). Perhaps a word under origins saying. Queen Victoria signed the warrant officially creating the VC on 29 January 1856 however it was not gazetted until 02 February 1856. That work? Woody (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what I just did, feel free to change the exact wording. The otehr Gazette reference in teh article needs updating to reflect a website change dating back to October. I'll track down the correct ref in a mo. David Underdown (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, and do you want to add yourself to the maintained template at the top, given your watching of the article and gazette knowledge? Woody (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Gazette ref done (and for the Aussie and Kiwi versions too - th epoint isn't mentioned in teh Canadian article). I could add myself I suppose. Is there any mileage in trying to find the Gazettes contaitng amendments to the warrant - the search engine is still a bit flaky, but I think fairly precise dates are given for a number of the changes which should help track them down. David Underdown (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, yes, though if the search engine is still a bit flaky, doesn't harm to wait. So, whenever you can add them, do so. Woody (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've begun collating references to warrants for the VC at User:David Underdown/VC warrants whilst doing so I've come across a few other slightly "unusual" Gazette entries realting to the VC which I'm also collating there. David Underdown (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible changes

I am most impressed with this article.

I do have some suggestions but would like to discuss them before amending the article.

Suggest rewriting the first paragraph

Lead

The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest award of the Imperial Honours System of the United Kingdom and participating Commonwealth countries. It is awarded for valour in the face of the enemy to members of the armed forces. It takes precedence over all other orders, decoration and medals. It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Awarding the medal

The Victoria Cross is awarded for “ "... most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy." ”

Recommendations for the Victoria Cross are normally initiated by an officer at regimental level and are usually supported by three witnesses. Recommendations are passed up the military hierarchy until it reaches the Secretary of State for War, (now the Secretary of State for Defence). The recommendation is laid before the monarch who approves the award with their signature. Victoria Cross awards are always promulgated in the London Gazette with the single exception of the award to the American Unknown Soldier in 1921.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 18 The mechanics of award and issue, pages 204.

Posthumous awards

Originally, the VC could not be awarded posthumously. Between the Indian Mutiny and 1897 and the beginning of the Second Boer War the names of six officers and men were published in the London Gazette with a memorandum stating they would have been awarded the Victoria Cross had they survived. A further three notices were published in the London Gazette in September 1900 and April 1901 for gallantry in the Second Boer War. In a partial reversal of policy, six posthumous Victoria Crosses, all for South Africa including the three officers and men mentioned in the notices in 1900 and 1901 were granted on 8 August 1902. Five years later in 1907, the posthumous policy was completely reversed and medals were finally sent to the next of kin of the six officers and men were mentioned in notices dating back to the Indian Mutiny. The Victoria Cross warrant was not amended to include posthumous awards until 1920 but one quarter of all awards for World War 1 were posthumous.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 8 Posthumous awards, pages 68 to 90.

Awards by ballot

In the case of a gallant and daring act being performed by a squadron, ship's company or a detached body of men (such as marines) in which all men are deemed equally brave and deserving of the Victoria Cross then a ballot is drawn. The officers select one officer, the NCOs select one individual and the private soldiers or seamen select two individuals. In all 46 awards have been awarded by ballot with 29 of the awards during the Indian Mutiny. Four further awards were granted to Q Battery, Royal Horse Artillery at Korn Spruit on 31 March 1900 during the Second Boer War. The final ballot awards for the Army were the six awards to the Lancashire Fusiliers at W Beach during the landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915 although three of the awards were not gazetted until 1917. The final seven ballot awards were the only naval ballot awards with three awards to two Q-Ships in 1917 and four awards for the Zeebrugge Raid in 1918. The provision for awards by ballot is still included in the Victoria Cross warrant but there have been no further awards since 1918.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 18 The mechanics of award and issue, page 204.

Extension to colonial troops

The Victoria Cross was extended to colonial troops in 1867. The extension was made following a recommendation for colonial soldier Major Charles Heaphy for gallantry in the New Zealand land wars in 1864. He was operating under British command and the VC was gazetted in 1867. Later that year, the Government of New Zealand assumed full responsibility for operations but no further recommendations for the Victoria Cross were raised for local troops who distinguished themselves in action. It would seem that New Zealand authorities assumed that without the presence of British forces, local troops could not be recommended for the Victoria Cross. Following gallant actions by three New Zealand soldiers in November 1868 and January 1869, an Order in Council on 10 March 1869 created a “Distinctive Decoration” for members of the local forces without seeking permission from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Although the Governor General was chided for exceeding his authority, the Order in Council was ratified by the Queen. The title “Distinctive Decoration” was later replaced by the title New Zealand Cross.

footnote: British gallantry awards, P E Abbott and J M A Tamplin, Nimrod Dix & Co, 1981, ISBN 0 902633 74 0, Chapter 34 The New Zealand Cross, pages 230-236.

The question of whether recommendations could be made for colonial troops not serving with British troops was never asked in New Zealand but twelve years later in 1881 the question would be asked and answered in South Africa. Surgeon J F McCrea, an officer of the South African forces was in 1881 recommended for gallantry during hostilities which had not been approved by British Government. He was awarded the Victoria Cross and the principle was established that gallant conduct could be rewarded independently of any political consideration of military operations. More recently, four Australian soldiers were awarded the Victoria Cross in Vietnam although Britain was not involved in the conflict.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 19 Difficult cases, pages 242-251.

Extension to Indian troops

Indian troops were not originally eligible for the Victoria Cross since they had been eligible for the Indian Order of Merit since 1837 which was the oldest British gallantry award for general issue. When the Victoria Cross was created the Indian troops were still controlled by the Honourable East India Company and did not come under Crown control until 1860. It was only at the end of the 19th Century when the prestige of the Victoria Cross far outweighed the prestige of the Indian Order of Merit that the call came for Indian troops to be awarded the Victoria Cross. This occurred in 1911. The first awards to Indian troops appeared in the London Gazette on 7 December 1914 to Naik Darwan Sing Negi and Sepoy Khudadad Khan. Naik Darwan Sing Negi was presented with the Victoria Cross by King George V during a visit to troops in France, The presentation was on 5 December 1914 and Naik Darwan Sing Negi is one of a very few soldiers presented with his award before it appeared in the London Gazette. Since European officers and men serving with the Honourable East India Company were not eligible for the Indian Order of Merit, the Victoria Cross was extended to cover them in October 1857.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 11 Awards to the Indian services, pages 117-125.

“Not in the presence of the enemy”

Between 1858 and 1881 the Victoria Cross could be awarded for actions taken "under circumstances of extreme danger" not in the face of the enemy. Six such awards were made during this period - five of them for a single incident (a shipwreck off the Andaman Islands in 1867). In 1881, the criteria were changed again and the VC was only awarded for acts of valour "in the face of the enemy". Since 1940, military personal who have distinguished themselves for gallantry “not in the face of the enemy" have been awarded the George Cross, which ranks immediately after the VC in the Order of Wear.

footnote M J Crook. The Evolution of the Victoria Cross, 1975, ISBN 0 85936 041 5, Chapter 13 Not in the presence of the enemy, pages 137 to 148.

Presentations

The Victoria Cross warrant makes no specific provision as to who should actually present the medals to the recipients. Queen Victoria indicated that she would like to present the medals in person and personally presented 185 medals out of the 472 gazetted during her reign. Including the first 62 medals presented at a parade in Hyde Park on 26 June 1857 by Queen Victoria nearly 900 awards have been personally presented to the recipient by the reigning British monarch. Nearly 300 awards have been presented by a member of the royal family or by a civil or military dignitary. About 150 awards were either forwarded to the recipient or next of kin by registered post or no details of the presentations are known.

footnote Dennis Pillinger and Anthony Staunton, Victoria Cross presentations and locations, 2000, ISBN 0 646 3971 9, page 73.

List Additions

I think it would be interesting to add to the lists things like the highest and lowest ranking persons to be awarded the VC, and the oldest and youngest. Merely a suggestion, however... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been many privates awarded the VC, so can't really say there's a single lowest ranking awardee. highest ranking might be more interesting 'H'. Jones was a lieutenant-colonel, and there are probably others of that rank, lists will often put people down under the highest rank they acheived which often won't be the rank they held at the time of the award, so it may not be entirely straightforward to work out either. Youngest, I've a avgue recollection that there was a midshipman at the Battle of Jutland who was only in his mid-teens. The main problem with this is that unless we can find a reliable source for the claim, we'd be in danger of veering into original research. David Underdown (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The highest rank recipients were Temporary Brigadier General Clifford Coffin, commanding 25th Brigade, British 8th Infantry Division on 31 July 1917 in Belgium and Temporary Brigadier General George Grogan commanding 23rd Brigade, British 8th Infantry Division on 27 May 1918 in France. I am not sure if this is original research since both appear in all complete lists of recipients. There are plenty of published works that list Hospital Apprentice Andrew Fitzgibbon, Indian Medical Establishment at Taku Forts, China on 21 August 1860 and Drummer Thomas Flinn, 64th Regiment at Cawnpore during the Indian Mutiny on 28 November 1857 as the youngest recipients. Both were aged 15 years and 3 months. The youngest naval recipient was 16 year old Boy John Travers Cornwell at Jutland.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Cross vs George Cross

I've removed the following text from the article to here for discussion. This is not my text but it significantly alters the article and should be agreed widely before insertion.

"Contrary to popular belief, the George Cross does not hold the same rank as the Victoria Cross. The seventh article of the letters patent creating the George Cross directs that it be worn after the Victoria Cross, and before the insignia of all the orders of chivalry. See the text of the norm at: http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/ViewPDF.aspx?pdf=35060&geotype=London&gpn=623&type=ArchivedIssuePage"

Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully concur. It is certainly the view in Australia that the GC comes after the VC. In the order of wear the GC comes after the VC. On the subject of order of wear the statement that the VC “takes precedence over all other orders, decorations, medals" is correct but not so for postnominals. The order of wear specifically states that Bt comes before all postnominals. Anyone with a copy of “The story of the Victoria Cross” will notice the title page is quite craftily done but the order is clearly Sir John Smyth Bt VC MC MP.

Anthony Staunton (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The text you removed is certainly incorrect, or at best highly misleading, confusing as it does order of wear with precedence. The letters patent make clear that the GC "ranks next to" (i.e. alongside, not next after) the VC. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the award.

Lance Corporal Matt Croucher has been nominated for the VC for throwing himself on a booby trap grenade in Afghanistan Given the description of what he did, it is worth keeping an eye on. Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read about him in the Times today. Many soldiers are nominated for the award, we just don't here about them. If and when he gets the award I am sure the page will be updated quickly. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to delete the following paragraph that appears under the heading Victoria Cross after World War II.

In March 2002, it was widely reported in the media that the VC was to be awarded to an unnamed Regimental Sergeant Major in the SAS for his involvement in fighting in the Tora Bora cave complex in November 2001. There was some debate over whether he should be named but a compromise was reached that his name, and some specific details of the action, would be withheld from the official announcement in the London Gazette. However, this did not happen; the VC award was never confirmed, and he and another member of the SAS, who had also been discussed as a possible VC recipient, were awarded Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses in October 2002 instead. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. It sets a bad precedent, although it was something of an exceptional circumstance (and incompetence by the MOD). Woody (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Powers of VC Winners

In the last item of the archives for Talk: Victoria Cross there is a query by 124.150.90.118 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) which says "I read in Wartime, the Australian War Memorial official magazine, that VC recipients could parade the Buckingham Palace guard, and one Aussie VC winner did so, however, I cannot find the issue." The article "One of a kind" by Ross McMullin appeared in Issue 29 (January 2005) and was about John Carroll VC. In the letters column of Wartime in Issue 31 (July 2005) I suggested it was one of a number of tall stories told by Carroll in hospital in 1927 when being interviewed by a reporter minutes after coming out of surgery having had a foot amputated after an industrial accident. Carroll was a very brave man in both war and peace. Anyone interested in the full story see "Private John Carroll VC: Gallantry at St Yves, Belgium" in Sabretache, the journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia, March 2005, email editor@mhsa.org.au for a pdf copy of the article. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Somone has asked for Protection

Sorry reverted wrong version due to incessent vandalism by IP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can those of you familiar with this military honor check out the validity of these two edits: 1 2? Just wanted to check, since they seem to be legit but I'm not certain since this article is experiencing some hit and runs at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal 03:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first has been repeatedly added in the past, but judged to be unnecessary and always reverted, it's always the same user who puts it in, and he hasn't responded to requests to discuss it (the comparison with Legion d'honneur is slightly debatable, as that is an order which consists of several grades). So on past precedent I've taken it back out again. The second, I don't know for sure, but I'm highly dubious about the necessity for such sections in general, as they tend to grow out of all proprtion with the main subject of the article. David Underdown (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the popular culture section, it is not useful in any way or relevant really. Woody (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another question

Does anyone have the official number of VC recipients? The page says both 1,352 and 1,353.--Tyman 101 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is 1353 according to the MOD The article reflects this. There has also been one recipient of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand, Bill Apiata. Woody (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that some has altered the numbers for living VCs, reducing Gurkhas to three (I think one has maybe died since the reference we were using), and adding one New Zealander, who is presumably the one who actually holds the NZ VC. David Underdown (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhanbhagta Gurung died in March and the New Zealander is Bill Apiata. Should we include him as a living Victoria Cross recipient which is technically true? Woody (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In other parts of the article we've coutned the VC for NZ as a separate award, so it's probably worth making clear at this point too. David Underdown (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the figure 14 since the end of World War 2 to 13 since the start of the Korean War because the number 14 would include Bill Apiata which should not be counted here. I have written since the start of the Korean War because 19 World War 2 awards were gazetted between 2 September 1945 and 19 December 1946 with a 20th, the last award for World War 2, being gazetted on 20 May 1949. Anthony Staunton (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

400.000 or 200.000 ?

At main page it says 200.000 at auction, and in the article it says 400.000. Which one is the correct ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.169.182 (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says "can reach above 200,000" so technically they are both correct. The highest figure was AU$1,000,000 which converts to £400,000. Woody (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken cited reference

The citation #2 is broken link. Can somebody fix it please? http://web.archive.org/web/20070609182751/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/VictoriaAndGeorgeCrossHoldersTheWorldsMostExclusiveClub.htm OlkhichaAppa (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The wayback machine, (the website we use to obtain archived webpages) is currently experiencing technical difficulties. When they fix that, the link will work again. There is nothing that we can do. Woody (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Receipts of VC

• A fictional receipt of VC is Major General Candy in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp; any other fictional VC receipts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.64 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See the section "Question" above. David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Winning?

The wording needs to be changed. VCs are not 'won'; they are 'awarded'. Olympic medals are won. 70.91.122.97 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Struck or cast?

The second paragraph mentions "the gunmetal from which the medals are struck", but the rest of the article talks of the medals being cast. I recall reading somewhere that, due to the nature of the metal, the VC is cast (unlike most(?) other medals, which are struck). NixonB (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thefts of the VC

I deleted the first sentence of this section that said that given “the rarity of the Victoria Cross and the fact they are rarely sold, these decorations are highly prized on the black market”. The claim that Victoria Crosses are rarely sold is contradicted by the fact that 68 have been publicly auctioned in the last ten years. see http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/aaauctio.htm The claim that these decorations are highly prized on the black market is not substantiated. Since it is legal to sell Victoria Crosses and all other British Commonwealth military medals there is no real reason to believe that stolen medals end up on the black market. Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

what the...

• ... we've now been without an article on the VC for about five minutes. Is it standard to delete whole articles to deal with vandal attacks? Or was the vandalism particularly egregious? And can we have it back now? tomasz. 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Has been restored now. It was removing some of the problematic edits from its TFA battering. Ask Krimpet (talk · contribs) for more information. Woody (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• cheers, i panicked a little cuz i saw it as a redlink from another article, but i didn't realise it was a TFA. that's obviously a good deal more than the usual vandalism. tomasz. 19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

drafting

Surely this line needs to be redrafted or removed from the opening paragrpah: "and is presented to the recipient by the British monarch during an investiture held at Buckingham Palace". There are many many examples of where the VC has been presented by someone other than the monarch and not at Buckingham Palace. Admittedly the last four British VCs have been presented by the Queen at Buckingham Palace, but was that so of the four Australian ones? Certainly the VC of New Zealand was not. This can be rectified by inserting the word "normally" before "presented" or removing this clause as I do not think it actually adds anything. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

VC vs GC 'equivalency'

Every now and again, using different types of words, claims appear that the Victoria Cross and the George Cross have some sense of equivalency. For example - this article currently states the VC "is the joint highest award for bravery in the United Kingdom with the George Cross", and also "the George Cross which has equal precedence but is awarded second due to fact that the GC is newer". I do not believe that either of those statements is true - there is simply nothing in the Gazette (which established the award) to indicate equivalency, the only reference to the VC is that the GC "shall be worn immediately after the Victoria Cross" (7th clause).

The UK MoD website indicates that the VC "remains the premier award for gallantry for the UK Armed Forces", and the New Zealand Order of Wear even rates the New Zealand Cross above the GC.

Unless authorative sites or sources can be found establishing the 'equivalency' of the VC and GC, I would suggest it is more appropriate to remove reference to any such claim. PalawanOz (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The VC is certainly senior, by date of creation if nothing else. One thing that occurs to me to justify some sort of equivalency is the fac tthat it is the Victoria Cross and George Cross association, not just the Victoria Cross association - the holders of the VC seem to in some sense regard the holders of the GC as their peers. Often it is merley the presence or abence of the enemy which makes the difference between which medal is awarded, take Trooper Finney, ad it not been a "friendly fire" incident, does anyone doubt that it would have been a VC he received not a GC? Similarly, the WWII cases (I forget names) where a couple of people were awarded the GC (posthumously?) for their efforts in retrieving Enigma related material from a U-boot, they were not awarded the VC since the U-boat's crew had surrendered, so technically the action was not "in the face of the enemy". David Underdown (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A further thought occurs to me, would you say that the DFC and MC were equal? Assuming you would, consider Nicky Barr (a nice Australian example for you). DFC gazetted 20/02/1942, bar 5/2/1943, MC 1/12/1944 - which comes first in the post-noms, the MC, presumably because the original warrant for the MC was prior to that for the DFC. David Underdown (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I would say the MC is more senior as it is awarded for "an act or acts of exemplary gallantry", as opposed to the DFC is for "an act or acts of valour, courage or devotion to duty". Exemplary gallantry 'outranks' an act of courage. The dates of gazettal/creation have very little to do with the order of precedence, except when you get further down the order towards awards for commemorative activities, or for the superceeding of awards by others (eg, new types of long service awards). I also don't see the VC and GC Association as a good reason to justify equivalency, as for example the Order of Australia Association has members from all the different grades, yet no one would argue the grades are equivalent. I guess ultimately what I would like to see is some form of offical acknowledgement that the VC and GC are equivalent to justify that phrase in the article - however I have spent a lot of time searching UK, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian sites with no hint of that euivalency. PalawanOz (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the MOD seems to disagree with you on the equivalency of the MC and DFC (and DSC) - see http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceFor/Veterans/Medals/HonoursAndGallantryAwards.htm. Similarly both the VC and GC are described as "level 1" awards. David Underdown (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point re the table and the MC/DFC/DSC, however I guess I am still a little confused by the wording of 'gallantry' vs 'courage'. In most respectives, 'gallantry' implies a higher level award - see for example Australian Honours Order of Precedence where the Star of Gallantry has higher precedence than Star of Courage, despite the SC being 16 years older (1975 vs 1991). On the Level 1 award category, again, whilst there is obviously acknowledgement that the VC and GC are in the same "tier", I still don't see that as being an explicit declaration of equivalency. By extension, that would imply that the DFC is equivalent with the AFC - I certainly do not believe that is the case.

The main difference seems to be the presence or absence of a declared enemy. I mentioned Christopher Finney earlier, had the planes been firing on him during his action been Iraqi, rather than US, it's extremely probable that he would have been awarded the VC instead. Curiously, Lance-Corporal of Horse Mick Flynn was awarded the CGC in the same action, which is normally considered to be an awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy (as the VC), though the wording of the warrant is subtly different, and talks about active operations against the enemy, rather than specifically mentioning "in the face of the enemy", which is presumably why it happened. The GC has also been awarded in incidents involving minefield rescues, again the VC has not been awarded since there hasn't actually been "an enemy" present at the time. Add one blokeshooting back at the same time, and it becomes "in the presence of an enemy" and suddenly you get the VC instead. Similarly with the AFC and DFC, bring a plane and crew back on one engine when the engines have just failed and you'll probably have ended up with an AFC, engine failure caused by enemy action, and you'll get the DFC, even though the skill and danger in bringing the plane back is actually the same in both cases (the DFC has of course also been awarded for consistent performance throughout a tour, which I don't think would be the case for the AFC). I believe that where military personnel are being considered for the GC, the process and requirements are essentially the same as for the GC, involving different, and higher, levels of proof, and a special committee which only meets to consider GCs and VCs. On the issue of the VC and GC association, this page states that it began as just the VC association, and it was the VC Association committee (all VCs), which decided to extend membership (first on an associate basis, and then as full, equal, members) to GCs as well. I take your point about the Order of Australia, but there does seem to me to be a difference betweenan assocaition which from it beginnings has covered all members of whatever grade of a multi-grade Order, and an association initially founded specifically for the recipients of one particular decoration, whose members then decide to extend membership of the holders of a different decoration. David Underdown (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly though from what you say, they initially limited GC holders to associate membership? That does tend to imply a certain ranking in the awards? I guess in the end, no-one seems able to find an authoritative source for a statement of equivalency - it is all supposition based on some fairly loose evidence, much of which can be ambiguous and interpreted in whatever way suits a particular point of view. As an aside, an AFC can be awarded for 'devotion to duty' - see here. PalawanOz (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Initially it seems that they did - though the GC was still pretty new in 1956 of course, and as an avowedly largely civilian award according to its original warrant, there may initially have been some unease about equating the two. It certainly seems to me that in practice holders are treated largely equally, that certainly seems to be the case in the UK press (though one should be wary of reading too much into that of course). It seems to be very difficult to read too much into the precise wording of the warrants, they don't seem to use terms such as gallantry, courage etc in precisely defined ways, and there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to bring them into line thorugh the various reorganisation and amendments - the great British unwritten constitution to some extent I expect. David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This MOD press release relating to the most recent award of the GC to Matthew Croucher explicitly says "The George Cross ranks with the Victoria Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry" - on the other hand, the press coverage somewhat contradicts itself in a number of way son this point. David Underdown (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they're both pretty good and I pay equal respect to anyone wearing either of them. Just a personal opinion -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This MoD Website on Military Honours and awards says: "The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry." That was what I worked on, surely the MoD know the standing of their own awards? Woody (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Post nominal letters

It is very clearly set down that the dignitary of Baronet (expressed at Bart or Bt) precedes the VC. Argue all you want, but you cannot alter that fact. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see User:David Underdown arguing with you - just rewording the sentence. The revised version does not disagree with the fact that the postnominal "Bt" precedes "VC". Also - Knight Bachelors have no entitlement to the postnominal "Kt" (see here). PalawanOz (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find linking useful, and I'm yet to be convinced by the argumetns in favour of removal. I don't find links particualrly obtrusive in general - don't know why. Similarly I tend to recognise them as dates, and so don't find it detracts from other linking. David Underdown (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to the removal of auto-formating. Most relevant for me is point 1(b) above - our saved preferences prevent us from seeing inconsistencies in formatting that non-logged in people (ie, the vast majority of readers) would see. PalawanOz (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have never seen the problem with autoformatting. If you have think there are problems with autoformatting inconsistency, then disable the preferences, that is what I have done. I don't particularly see the fuss over it and don't think it should be removed, no matter how watered down MOS/MOSNUM etc has become. Woody (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What are the advantages of autoformatting and how do they outweigh the disadvantages? DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll take it as a serious question, and answer that I can't see any advantages. I thought that since DoubleBlue and Woody are such solid proponents of it that you might have been keen to put a substantive argument yourselves, beyond "I have no problem with it" or "I don't particularly like the fuss". With the exception of two recurring loud voices, people have mostly responded positively. Tony (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do remember that many of the "cite" templates and others, eg {{LondonGazette}}, several of which are used in this article automatically link accessdate, so if you remove the rest of the auto-formatting, you are still left with inconsistencies. David Underdown (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, if you read what DoubleBlue has said here and elsewhere, he supports the removal of date-autoformatting as far as I can see. He supports removal over on Talk:Victoria_Cross_(Canada). For me, the advantages are that viewers can choose their own format, it is part of the mediawiki software for better or for worse. If we remove dates from one article and not another, then we become inconsistent, especially within a Featured Topic. I think this was a very bad choice of things to water down in the MOS, as it breeds inconsistency. I am not being loud Tony, if I was I would wonder over to MOS/MOSNUM and waste my life debating it, I won't as those pages have their cliques and I have little time for high-school politics.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• FA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics Victoria Cross featured content
• Top-importance Featured topics articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed Orders, decorations, and medals articles
• Unknown-importance Orders, decorations, and medals articles
• WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• FA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English