Talk:Victoria Cross/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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:

Stolen list	QEII
Leslie Andrew	Leslie Andrew
	Thomas Cooke
	Bernard Diamond
Keith Elliott	Keith Elliott
Samuel Frickleton	Samuel Frickleton
John Gildroy Grant
	William Hardham
John Daniel Hinton	John Daniel Hinton
Alfred Hulme	Alfred Hulme
Reginald Stanley Judson	Reginald Stanley Judson
Harry John Laurent	Harry John Laurent
	Percy V. Storkey
Charles Upham

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."[1] ”

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.[27] Six such awards were made during this period - five of them for a single incident (a shipwreck off the Andaman Islands in 1867).[28] In 1881, the criteria were changed again and the VC was only awarded for acts of valour "in the face of the enemy".[28] 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)

Memorials

The Remembrance Driveway "honours Australia's War Heroes with a Living Memorial" and each of the rest areas along it is named after (and honours) an Australian VC. Does this rate as a memorial for the purposes of this article? (And I'd be surprised if there weren't other similar memorials elsewhere). --PeterJeremy (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2009 (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)

I have removed "However, the VC is higher in the order of wear and would be worn first by an individual who had been awarded both decorations (which has not so far occurred)." It is unsourced and speculative. It may be true, but until someone wins both awards and lives long enough to worry about what order to wear them in, it seems pedantic to mention it in the lead.

For the record The wording in the The George Cross Warrant is: "Seventhly: It is ordained that the Cross shall be worn by recipients on the left breast suspended from a ribbon one and a quarter inches in width, of dark blue, that it shall be worn immediately after the Victoria Cross and in front of the Insignia of all British Orders of Chivalry, and that on those occasions when only the ribbon is worn, a replica in silver of the Cross in miniature shall be affixed to the centre of the ribbon." and then goes on to say "Provided that when the Cross is worn by a woman, it may be worn on the left shoulder, suspended from a ribbon of the same width and colour, fashioned into a bow." --PBS (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pdfpdf where in the source does it support the text? Please quote the sentence. --PBS (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PBS: What is the intent of your question?

• Do you still have doubt that in the order of wear the VC is higher than the GC? If so, I'm surprised - you have already quoted sufficient evidence to remove any doubt. However, I believe the definitive document is http://www.honours.gov.uk/honours/wear.aspx, which is also unambiguous.
• Or are you simply making the point that the quoted reference is irrelevant? (In which case I agree, and have modified the article accordingly.)

The sentence in question could probably do with other references too - e.g. to confirm that no-one has been awarded both awards. Etc.

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2009 (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 [1] 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 ^(talk) 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:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woody (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 July 2008

Woody, it's you I want to persuade. Perhaps it comes down to perceptions of clutter and readability; perhaps it's a matter of weighting perceived disadvantages differently. I want to know what you experience when you read an article that has a reasonable number of dates, plain black, and of high-value links. I do have comparisons if you're interested. And here's the date as usual, unformatted, black, and international style with my sig. Tony (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said over on your talkpage, I'm actually coming round to it, but the inconsistency across all articles is what is bothering me. I have seen this altered policy being brought into effect over the last two weeks (sometimes rather incompetently, sometimes under the misguided impression that they have to remove all date-linking) and I really don't see what the fuss is. I am sure it pains those who have date preferences enabled, I don't so I don't care. If you want to go through this article and remove the dates, then do so. Yes, I think I weigh the disadvantages differently to you, I don't see them as blue blobs, I just see them as part of Wikipedia: It doesn't affect the readability of the prose for me either way. Welcome back and Regards. Woody (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Woody. I'd rather not remove DA from an article where there's objection from even one person. At the moment, it's attitudes I'm surveying. Tony (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Recipients since WWII

"The two awards given in the 21st century to British personnel have been for actions in the Afghanistan conflict and the Iraq War. On 18 March 2005, Lance Corporal (then Private) Johnson Beharry of the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment became the first recipient of the VC since Sergeant Ian McKay in 1982.[13] The most recent award of the Victoria Cross to a British service person was the posthumous award on 14 December 2006 to Corporal Bryan Budd of 3 Para. It was awarded for two separate acts of "inspirational leadership and the greatest valour" which led to his death, during actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan in July and August 2006."

The first sentence here contradicts the rest of the paragraph, which describes at least three recipients: Beharry, McKay and Budd. Should it be "The (number) awards given to British personnel *since WWII* have..."? Bungo77 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm McKay was in the 20th cnetury, not 21st... David Underdown (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, carry on. Bungo77 (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sizes of public collections

A number of questions:
1. Is there any supporting evidence for any of the numbers of medals in the "Public collections" table? If so, where is it? If not, why not?
2. Why is it necessary to provide a reference when correcting a number when there is no reference supporting the original wrong number, and no references supporting any of the other numbers in the table?
3. Why is it preferable to have an unsupported wrong number in the table rather than an unsupported correct number?
4. If you were to supply a reference, what format would you use, and where would you place it?
5. Actually, it looks like there are 18 VC medals in the Green Howards Regimental Museum ...
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two references placed at the end of the sentence which introduces the table. The first is from a general list of VC holdings, which gives numebrs for a variety of museums. The second is specifically for a Scottish museum whose holdings obviously haven't been updated in the general list yet. David Underdown (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David.
So, #1 answered. #2 now not applicable. (#3 was a stupid question.) #4 I'm still looking for an answer to #4. #5 (wasn't a question).
New question:
6. Can you tell me the definition of "Number of VCs"?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Post Script:

For example, if you look at http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/cciwm.htm, you can see that there are 48 VCs associated with the Imperial War Museum. Of these, 46 are on display, one is on loan elsewhere, and one is on permanent loan elsewhere. Of the 46 on display, 5 are on loan from elsewhere.

So you could argue that the "Number of VCs" is:

• 48 - There are 48 associated with the museum.
• 46 - There are 46 on display.
• 43 - 46 on display + 2 lent - 5 borrowed = 43.
• 41 - 46 on display - 5 borrowed = 41.

In any and all cases, none of these numbers = 40. (40 is the number in the table at Victoria Cross#Public collections.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lord Ashcroft has probably lent them some more since the figures were added. This does suggest we should re-erify the numbers, and given the confusion, perhaps revisit how the referencing is being done (though we should bear in mind that this table hasn't been changed in it's format since it passed Featured Article, so it was obviously considered acceptable at that time. Maybe we shoudl reference each figure individually, and decide how we are going to treat cases like the IWM, maybe specifically state how many are on display, and that two are on loan to other institutions? David Underdown (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly good summary of what I had in mind! So, what's the next step? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could just remove it completely as it has the ambiguity behind it and will date quickly as has been shown now. I would have no objection to removing the table and just expanding the paragraph slightly to say that some museums have large numbers of VCs. Woody (talk)

I acknowledge your points, but to me that seems a bit like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". I'm in favour of retaining the table if we can find some way to do so AND address the points you have raised. If we can't address the "changing numbers" issue to everyone's satisfaction, one solution might be to replace the column of numbers with a column of links to the pages which show the holdings? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, than would then raise the issue of what sort order the table should be in ... Pdfpdf (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment. It doesn't really add anything to the table, some museums have VCs, what influence does that have on the VC itself. Does it have any bearing on the medal and its history. How has it influenced the development of the warrant or the recipients? It could be farmed out to a separate list where a notes column could be integrated, but that does not resolve the ever-changing nature of the list and the inability to reflect loans in it. The raw data that you have provided is indicative of that. Woody (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating error?

Noted the following, about the awarding of a Canadian VC: "at the rededication of the Vimy Memorial on 7 April 2007. This date was chosen as it was the 90th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge but pressure from Veterans organisations caused the plan to be dropped."

Seems to me the writer of the article or of this section missed something. The Battle of Vimy Ridge was 9 April 1917. The rededication of the Memorial was - no? really?! - 9 April 2007. The date "quoted" is the date of The Star article on the uproar. 198.103.134.222 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of precedence

If a soldier got an British VC and an Australia VC, which one would be worn first? Would he get two medals? (I guess he would). PS: I wish that Australia, NZ and Canada had stuck to the original (British) VC. These new VCs complicate matters. Wallie (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First a comment: Of the Oz, Can and NZ VCs, a total of 1 has been awarded: Oz=0, Can=0, NZ=1.

You have asked several questions there:

"If a soldier got an a British VC and an Australia VC, which one would be worn first?" - It would depend on his nationality, and the order of precedence for that nation.

• For Australia, Australian Honours Order of Precedence. Australia treats the VC differently from ALL other awards. Generally, if an award is not Australian, it is deemed "foreign", and worn after ALL Australian awards. The VC, however, has its own separate rules - British or Australian, they are worn in the order that they are earnt, and they are worn before any and all other awards. (Presumably, if an Australian were to be awarded a NZ or Canadian VC, those would be classed as "foreign"!!)
• I don't know about Can, NZ or UK, but I would expect they'd be similar.

"Would he get two medals? (I guess he would)." - Yes, he would.

"PS: I wish that Australia, NZ and Canada had stuck to the original (British) VC. These new VCs complicate matters." - Not really. A person decides their nationality (or perhaps more accurately, has it unambiguously decided for them), and the rules of that nation apply. Also, I expect it most unlikely that anyone will ever hold a VC from more than one country.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

VC and Bar

The three holders of the VC and Bar are already listed in the recipients section, there is no need to dupliate the information elsewhere in the article. David Underdown (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I do think there may be some merit in breaking up the recipients section a little more. Wallie's attempt perhps made things a little stubby, though there are sub-sections of similar lengths elsewhere in the article. Similarly we perhaps ought to revisit some of the other section headers - a number do contain VC, which could be held to break the MOS enjoinder about repeating the article title in section headers.

I've also reworded the text regarding the VC and BAr, previously we had "Three people have been awarded the VC and Bar, that is a medal for two separate actions". On looking at this again it seems slightly ambiguous - a number of recipients have received only a single award of the VC, whilst their citation mentions multiple acts. This now reads, "Three people have been awarded the VC and Bar, the bar representing a second award of the VC", and I also added a very brief explanation of the nature of the acts carried out by the three such recipients. David Underdown (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Bar rewrite, having looked at numerous citations where recipients have three or more actions for one VC. I also think that some sections could do with a revisit (see edit) but splitting up a large section with level three subheaders for every paragraph is poor writing. The efforts are truly appreciated, but they do not conform to the required formatting standards of Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Underdown. Some of the sections contain too much information, and the important stuff is buried in the middle somewhere. I somehow doubt that many people would bother trudging through so much sometimes unrelated detail. I attempted to break up one section, which you seemed not to like. However, other sections do have subsections in them. I would like to know why you didn't comment on these. Wallie (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I reverted the addition of sub-titles in the recipients section. From looking at the history David has only clarified some of the text. Which edits are you disagreeing with Wallie, and which sections do you think need breaking up? Regards. Woody (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What sections should be broken up? - the recipients section for starters. Wallie (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, other sections are longer (and it already has one sub-section). Bear in mind that one of the first things to be criticised when you go GA, A-class or FA status is short stubby-sections. As Woody ahs said, this article is at FA so we need to be careful that any changes do not degrade the quality of the article. See Help:Section, on "softer" subjects it's recommended that sections generally be longer, we are not giving many technical definitions which naturally need to be separated, the various headers you came up with were rather limiting, in that they could never be expanded, which tends to suggest that they were over-specific. David Underdown (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

VC and KG

I wonder how many individuals managed to win both top honours of the UK - Victoria Cross and membership in the Order of the Garter. Only two come to my mind: Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts and William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle. Apparently there were three. Who was the third? ViennaUK (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1st Class Order of Merit same as Victoria Cross?

Hi,

Can somebody clarify me the standing of following World War I military awards vis-a-vis Victoria Cross? These awards were won by 2 Sikh soldier in 1916:

1st Class Order of Merit
2nd Class Cross of the Russian Order of St. George
2nd Class of the Order of British India

I am providing the citations from colonial Punjab's Governer General's speech:

I will give you here the names of three of those men who have earned fame by their heroism. Jamadar Gurmukh Singh, a Saini Sikh of Gadram Badi in Eupar, won the 1st Class Order of Merit and the 2nd Class Cross of the Russian Order of St. George for his splendid courage on the night of the 1st March 1916 when he advanced under the greatest difficulties....llth May 1918. his conspicuous gallantry in action on the 17th November 1914 when with a party of Sappers under the command of a British Officer he was always to the fore and led his men with great determination into the enemy's trenches. Subedar-Major Jagindar Singh, Saini Sikh of Kheri Salabat- pur in* Bupar, gained the 2nd Class Order of Merit at the battle of Loos in Belgium for striking leadership and con- spicuous bravery in action after most of his company and all but one British Officer in his regiment had been killed or wounded. This officer was also awarded the 2nd Class of the Order of British India for distinguished conduct in the field.

http://www.archive.org/stream/warspeeches00odwyuoft/warspeeches00odwyuoft_djvu.txt

I would appreciate if somebody could explain the equivalency of these awards vis-a-vis Victoria Cross. I read somewhere that Ist Class of Order of Merit was same as Victoria Cross...Please confirm.--Internet Scholar (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Order of Merit is (as its name suggests) an order, not a decoration per se, and there isn't really any "equivalency" - they were awarded for quite different things. You got the VC for a single particularly valorous act in combat; the OM was awarded for (among other things) a general record of particularly distinguished service. Shimgray | talk | 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Beg to differ. Prior to 1912 Indian Order of Merit (Class I, II and III) was the only gallantry award available to natives. In 1912, Class I of this award was replaced by Victoria Cross in British India. If you read the citation above, the Order of Merit has been granted for individual valorous acts("conspicuous bravery")rather than distinguished service. What I am not sure is whether the Class I of the Indian Order of Merit and VC were synonymous after 1912 or whther the remaining two class were renumbered after replacing the class I with Victoria Cross. thanks--Internet Scholar (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The original first class of the Indian Order of Merit (which is of course different from the Order of Merit) was supserseded by the award of the VC for Indian troops in 1911, so it would seem reasonable to equate the two for acts of gallantry prior to that time (the Indian Order of Merit is actually older than the VC too). David Underdown (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but what would be the equivalency of 1st Class Order of Merit won in 1916? Any idea? Would it be VC or notch lower? --Internet Scholar (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So it is - my apologies. The thing I was reading implied that the changeover to the VC in India had happened earlier... Shimgray | talk | 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviated title for Russian Cross of St. George just as VC is for Victoria Cross

Does anybody here have a clue what would be abbreviated for Russian Cross of St. George just as VC is for Victoria Cross. For example, if Colonel John Doe won Victoria Cross, then we write his name as Col. John Doe (VC). What would we write to describe a winner of Russian Cross of St. George? Colonel John Done (GC)? Russian Cross of St. George was highest award for military gallantry in Imperial Russia. I would appreciate any help.--Internet Scholar (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it ! It is Cr St Geo! Cheers!--Internet Scholar (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Please bear in mind taht this is a featured article, the current state of the article, particularly the wording of the lead is a long-standing consensus. We've tended not to over-emphasise the UK aspect, because we're also trying to cover the historical situation, and the following wording makes it clear that the UK is most common country to have made the award. I've tried to revamp things a little to include some of the other stuff, such as the alternative names. To me this made more sense after the brief description of the history, since it's to do with how the award has chagned over time. Since we mention the separate versions in the body, it probably does rate a mention in the lead per WP:LEAD, but we don't really need the direct link, the whole point is that the introduction summarises the whole article. We still actually only have two paras in the elad, so perhaps it ought to be more comprehensively revisited. David Underdown (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, featured article status does not equate to being static. I do not see how an explicit indication of the VC being an award for the armed forces of the UK upfront is controversial: it is certainly clearer than is presently the case, and the status quo requires someone to know of the nature of the Commonwealth (which may not be obvious to some). For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the VC notes upfront that it is "the highest decoration for valour in the British armed forces".[2] While the alternate renditions further down are fine, style guidelines usually require alternates to be closer to the beginning. Bosonic dressing (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK is mentioned soon after anyway, when's there's a long standing version of something, it's better to discuss, particulary after you've been reverted once (see WP:BRD). Britannica may chose to over-simplify, but that's no reason why we have to do the same. Generally we don't link to within the article from the lead, we should be sumamrising the whole thing anywya, so there's no reason to pick out one section above any other, plus, th elink doesn't look any different to a link to another article, so some may find it confusing to be dumped somewhere else in the same article when following such a link. David Underdown (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course being an FA does not equate to a finished version, but what it does equate to is wording that has been extensively discussed, revisited, rewritten and selected for its clarity. If you check the featured version to the current version, there have been some extensive revisions to this article and if you look at this talkpage they were all discussed and revised here. We are not averse to change, but the changes have to be beneficial, and frankly, some of the recent changes haven't been in my opinion. Some of the wording and structure has become weaker. May I also reinforce the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Once you are reverted, discuss why you think the changes should go ahead on the talkpage, do not re-revert as that is considered edit warring.

In terms of the text itself, I don't think it neccessary to include all of the possible naming variations of the Victoria Cross especially in a lone paragraph. I have never heard called the Commonwealth Victoria Cross, nor indeed the British Victoria Cross though I have heard it called the Imperial one. Woody (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not really sure they're alternative names, just useful disambiguation in certain circumstances. Just like the fact it's really simply the Royal Navy, but just occasionally you may need to clarify taht you really do mean specifically the British one. David Underdown (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pity me to have boldly made such a controversial edit -- that of indicating that the VC is awarded to members of the UK armed forces -- in the first place ... not. I cite Britannica not as an example to over-simplify, but as an example of succinct clarity. One shouldn't have to barrel down half the intro before realising this is a British honour (and rather unclearly, at that) and not just one among Commonwealth members. The link to the prior article is not relevant, unless it demonstrates that this particular point has been dealt with previously. Again, a wiki isn't static, and enhancements are yet to be made and arguably necessary; yet, the intro does seem bloated, and perhaps other things in it can be dispensed with.

Moreover, I linked to the appropriate section internally [3] as it is indicated that three countries have developed variants of the VC: well, what are they? If there is no link, they should be listed in that sentence. As well, I would like to see a style guideline or policy discouraging internal links in the (3rd paragraph of the) lead, which somewhat defeats the purpose of a wiki.

Lastly, as nothing exists in a vacuum and there are other national variants of the VC, it is necessary to list the major naming variations (disambiguations?) of the honour. I have provided citations to that effect, so what one may or may not have heard is irrelevant. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<od>The fact that it's a "British" award does not mean that it is/was ONLY awarded to Britons. It was a "British Empire" award, and is now a "British Commonwealth" award (except that India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have replaced it by other awards for their citizens.)

• Regarding Britanica, although the statement is correct, it is incomplete - i.e. it falls into the category of being "a half truth"; it may be succinct, it may be clear, but it is definitely incomplete, and I believe it is misleading.
• Regarding your bold edit, it is not controversial, it is just inadequate.
• Regarding this phrase:"before realising this is a British honour (and rather unclearly, at that) and not just one among Commonwealth members." - I don't understand, so I can't comment.
• Regarding: "The link to the prior article is not relevant, unless it demonstrates that this particular point has been dealt with previously." - It is relevant because it demonstrates that an FA is not static.

I would add to the chorus saying: "This article has been through FA". This means it has been discussed and considered and thought about at great length and in great detail. It hasn't got to the way it is "by accident" - if it is different from what you think it should be, there is almost certainly a reason why this is the case. If you don't understand, ask. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the lead as it was before the red-linked user started making the changes; seems perfectly clear to me. Skinny87 (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with you being bold Bosonic, I have issue with you not understanding the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Once you have been bold and reverted, then discuss why you have been reverted. In this case, it is because people disagree with the reasoning behind your wording.

In terms of the intro, I think David was saying it should be expanded, not cut, which would be okay in terms of WP:LEAD.

With regards to linking to paragraphs: as far as I'm aware, it is not explicitly codified for or against them in the WP:MOS. I would then presume that it is up to consensus on each page to decide, and at the moment that consensus is against them.

Moving forward, I think the last paragraph of the lead should be removed as they are not common uses, nor are they official names. Woody (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Moving forward, I largely agree with Woody. Further, that paragraph makes no mention of India or Pakistan. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. Given the hoopla generated over what should be simple notions and edits, I now know what to hereafter avoid. Bosonic dressing (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallows?

when discussing King Gorges change to allow the recipient to where the medal it does not mention to the "gallows" as quoted, as this conflicts with the source, but should be changed to the scaffold. this also agrees with another wikipedia page that uses a different source but still quotes it as the scaffold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.222.236 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will check my source tommorrow and do some digging around. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Saluting of VC Holder

I disagree with the part stating that saluting a VC holder is a myth. Although it was not stated in the offical Warrant of the VC or in the Queen's Regulations and Orders,it was stated in chapter 2 of the RAAF Manual of Drill that holder of the VC are to be saluted. I understand that it might not apply to the British Military or other members of the Commonwealth, but it certainly apply to the Australian Defence Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nggameshk (talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Medal or Cross

As this decoration is clearly a cross and not a medal i have substituted the word cross or decoration for medal. In the Warrant of 13 of August 1855 the word "medal" is never used in describing the VC. It is called Decoration (Art. 6) or Cross (Art. 2)

Source: The text of the Royal Warrant as reproduced by P.E.Abbot in "British Gallentry Awards" 1971

Abbot never uses the word "medal" when crosses are meant. Nor should we.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel

Robert Prummel (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems unecessarily fussy and pedantic. In general terms it is a medal (with a small m), your changes read very awkwardly and I'm tempted to revert straight off, but I'll wait a little to see what others think. I have however removed your unsupported opinion about the metal, I don't it particularly adds anything, and we really need a reference to support. Looking over things again, you've also changed to crosses, when more general collections of medals were being referred to, and even changed a published newspaper headline, and a verbatim quote! David Underdown (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Sorry about the quote Underdown. I noticed that you have allready put it right. Your general clean up has allso improved the article. I will give a source for the poor material one of these days, it is of some importance because the jeweler has trouble producing decorations of the quality and the detail needed from a source of metal that would not otherwise be considered good enough.. Pedantic? That is up to you but I have the text of the Royal Warrant on my side. The British law never calls this cross a medal and neither do reputable printed sources. I am a well known collector and I publish articles about decorations. I find the habit in America of calling everything an award plain wrong. I had to correct articles were a grandcross's insignia were described as two different awards; i.e a star and a medal. In faleristics the usage is to call the insignia of an order of knighthood "insignia", "Badges" or "jewels", "Grand Crosses" or "crosses" or "stars" depending on the form. A medal is just that; a round or oval disc. With a few exceptions a medal is considered less prestigious than a star or a cross.

Robert Prummel (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • A source was easy to find: [4] writes: "The London jewellers Hancocks, based in the Burlington Arcade in London, make the medals. The bronze has always been unstable to work with as it has already been worked on when the cannon was made".

It's not obvious that that site is actually a reliable source, there's no indication of who publishes it or what their own sources are, though what they say is obviously true from a metallurgical point of view. Likewise the usage of medals I'm sure has the techincal use taht you describe, but in common usage, most people don't make the distinction, as evidenced by the MOD quote and newspaper headline. People jsut aren't used to thinking of a cross in that way - most of the time in the article we can probably get round it by just saying a VC or whatever though. David Underdown (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The thing about "common usage" is that one should be aware of not copying common mistakes and misconceptions. We should be precise wherever we can. Redirects should bring visitors to the right article. There are still hundreds of newspaperarticles about "Indians" instead of "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". Wiki calls them Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Robert Prummel (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your source says "The London jewellers Hancocks, based in the Burlington Arcade in London, make the..." what was that, again? :-) -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added the story about the material as a contrast between the prestige of the VC and the baseness of the material that is used. Not gold, but very poor, yet historic, bronze. Robert Prummel (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As I commented above, I don't believe the reference you have found is a sufficiently reliable source. Remember this is a featured article, so we must be absolutely sure about the standard of the references. David Underdown (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unverified statements holding pen

I have moved the followin statements from the article as I can't seem to find good references for them. Feel free to add them back if you can verify them.

• The only exception to this was the formation of the Royal New Zealand Navy ship HMNZS Charles Upham; the coat of arms for this vessel featured Charles Upham's VC and Bar as its only item.{{Fact|date=May 2009}}

• Only Field Marshal the Lord Roberts and William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle have been both a Knight of the Order of the Garter and awarded the VC.{{Fact|date=January 2009}}

Thanks, Woody (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Winners"

Woody, et al, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the use of the term "winners" in the context of the Victoria Cross, and also in terms of all military medals.

We've had this discussion here at work (Veterans Affairs Canada or VAC) and I am strongly against the use of the term "winner" in describing or refering to a soldier, officer or private, who was awarded the Victoria Cross.

In my view, the Victoria Cross and other military medals are not "won" by someone. They are earned by, they are awarded to, they are recipients of. These decorations were not given out like candy, specially not the Victoria Cross, nor did these men compete or play to "win" such decorations. War is not a game in which you compete against your fellow soldier, be he friend or foe.

Our VAC Web site contains many references to VC "winners" and contains stories or synopsies of how these men "won" the VC. I am endeavouring to have this changed, for the above reasons. I'm hoping others here in Wikiland agree, and perhaps we can change the references to "winners" in this page, and other pages on other military decorations.

And if there are those with differing view points, I am most interested in hearing your arguments. Cheers! Wikig39 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

British MOD also frequently uses winner. To me alternatives often sound stilted or contrived and unnecessarily fussy. David Underdown (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am more with Wikig39 on this one and I have actively tried to avoid using "winner" when I have edited. I tend to agree that they are not "won" per se, they are awarded to recognise particularly gallant acts. As such, I find recipient to be a lot more accurate in my mind. I think that if worded correctly you can avoid the issues around being contrived etc. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I just thought to look "winner" up in the OED, the first definition given is "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit;" the definition of winning a competition etc is the secondary definition. David Underdown (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree completely with Wikig39 and Woody.

Yes, in theory, David is completely correct in saying that the OED says that. Nevertheless, I personally think to say someone "won" the VC "cheapens" it and is disrespectful.

Strangely, I just had the same conversation with on Nick-D's page. Viz:

I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's longstanding usage. British MoD is happy enough with it, obits in The Times frequently use it in obituaries and other articles related to the VC, the OED's first definition of winner is "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit;" the definition of winning a competition etc is the secondary definition. David Underdown (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go! To quote somebody else: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful." Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that Nick David is quite right, but never-the-less, it has no effect on my (no doubt biased) opinions - just on my reaction to it. (i.e. instead of immediately reverting or changing use of the word "won" to something I feel more respectful, I will now be more polite about what I do about it.)

But in my undoubtedly biased opinion, one does NOT "win" a VC, irrespective of what the OED, MoD and "the Times" tollerate! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I fyo ulook carefully it was actually me that responded to you on Nick's page. I then remebered this exisitng conversation, and thought it was worth adding. Just as a further data point, the earliest usage which talks about VCs being won that I can found is from 1867. In The Times there are only a couple of hits each for VC or Victoria Cross recipient, none for VC or Victoria Cross holder. All of which suggest to me that winner in this context has always been acceptable in British English. David Underdown (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So it was! (Mea culpa.) As I said, "I am sure that you are quite right".

However, (as I also said), to me it seems disrespectful. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't expect to generate this much discussion! But very interesting to learn what the British Ministry of Defense uses. I checked the Canadian Department of National Defense/Canadian Forces Web site quickly, and found they use "winner" and "recipient" interchangeably...in the same article. Terrible, really. Of interest, the (Paperback edition) Oxford Canadian Dictonary - which also describes how I can be at times :) - is the inverse of the OED; the first definition for "winner" is "a person etc. that decides the outcome of a game or competition." The OCD doesn't refer to gaining or merit or...

Ergo, I guess you can all say it's a Canadian thing :)

Well yes, you could say that, but David is carefully detailing what he says/implies is the British situation. Although I'm emphasising that my opinions are my opinions, I have the impression that I am reflecting Oz opinion. (No doubt someone will "correct" me if they disagree!) So, I guess I disagree that it is only a Canadian thing. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to post on the Great War Forum and the Canadian Expeditionary Force Study Group and see what folks think there, and report back on any concensus for further discussion. Wikig39 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to head over to the Great War forum myself (I have an account there). You're not the first one to have raised this. Those from the US seem particualrly against the use of "winners", but as shown, usage around the Commonwealth seems to be more variable. David Underdown (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted in the "Chit-Chat" section on the GWF. Quoted parts of what was said here. Anybody checked ANZAC references? Wikig39 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to undermine David's dependence upon the OED first definition "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit". In our context the subject "One" makes his gain at the time - he overwhelms a machine gun post, he collects fallen comrades from the field of fire etc; almost uniquely, Leonard Cheshire made his gains over a period of time. It is almost unthinkable (it would probably be a disqualification if known) that any of these heroes should have the gain of a VC as his objective. The definition does not say that the subject's purpose is to win what he wins - but that is implied all right. Certainly common understanding puts any winner in a context where he knows the prize before he starts. You can set out to win promotion, you can set out to win a pay rise, a general can set out to win a battle, but the surviving hero is always (for all I know) surprised to be honoured with a VC. Roop1940 (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well in fact I only quoted the first patr of the definition, it continues " spec. one who gets (a living) by labour, an earner (obs. or dial. exc. in BREAD-WINNER); one who makes profit, as by trading; one who ‘wins’ (corn), a harvester, reaper (fig.)." the last part in particular shows a much more figurative sense to the idea of winning, there doesn't have to be a defined goal in mind from the outset. Besides, I quoted the OED only to show that people seemed to be looking at the idea of "winner" too narrowly, for me the real issue is tat it's a phrase that's been used in print almost as long as teh VC itself has existed, it is common English usage. At least one recipient, John Brunt apparently said, "I've won the M.C., now for the V.C.!" David Underdown (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum & the Ashcroft Gallery

Hello all. In the interests of transparency, I am a curator at the Imperial War Museum. This article points out that the Ashcroft Gallery will open in 2010. As some of the contributors to this page may know, the Imperial War Museum's permanent Victoria Cross and George Cross Gallery is now closed pending the opening of the Ashcroft Gallery. I propose to make small edits to the 50-odd articles about individual medal winners that state 'this individual's medal is on display at the Imperial War Museum' to say instead that an individual's medal will go on display in November 2010 as part of the Ashcroft Gallery. This is not intended to be promotional, instead it's intended to correct information that is now out of date and inaccurate, and may be misleading to a visitor who expects to see a given medal. Rather than make these edits straight off, I thought it best to mention it here first. Responses are welcomed. --IxK85 (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? Something that we can quote? If you have that and use it when making the edits, there shouldn't be a problem. Most Victoria Cross recipients articles will have a sentence on where the medal is currently held, so any updates to that are always welcome. If you need any help with the formatting, then leave a note here or on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source that names each individual medal, but this [5] states that the Museum's 47 VCs will go on show when the Ashcroft Gallery opens on 11 November 2010. Would it be sufficient to state that an individual's medal is held by the IWM, and that it will go on display as part of the gallery, with that reference? And thanks for the offer of assistance, but I'm reasonably confident with the ref formatting.--IxK85 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Army Gold Cross

It would be nice to make some reference to the Peninsular Army Gold Cross, which is possibly the source/inspiration for the Victoria Cross design, but I'm not sure the references I have are FA standard: [6] [7]. Duckers' [8] book also comments on the similar design (p. 12) Gwinva (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Duckers comments that it is "similar in shape to" but doesn't say whether it was influenced. It also says that Hancocks designed it "in house" so I guess we will never know whether the designer was influenced by the Army Gold Cross and it would be guess work without a complete reference. At the moment it just seems like rumour, "it is said that...". Regards, Woody (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

M J Crook at pages 29-35 discusses the source of the design and suggests there are reasonable grounds that H H Armstead of Hancock’s may have been the designer. However, Crook notes that the Queen had a number of comments that were incorporated into the final design. Crook mentions the Gold Cross but gives it no weight.Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Collective VC

Stumbled across National Shell Filling Factory, Chilwell today, which makes the odd, but cited claim, that after an explosion there in WWI the factory was collectively awarded the VC. I've asked for more info at Talk:National Shell Filling Factory, Chilwell#Dubious, but wondered if anyone watchign this page had ever heard of this? Would surely be worth mentioning here if it was truly a collective award. David Underdown (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a good argument that the award of the Victoria Cross to the American unknown warrior in 1921 was a collective award but that is the only case of an award not being presented to a specific individual.There were at least three British collective awards during the First World War. Not the Victoria Cross but the Military Cross was presented to the Verdun and Ypres while the naval Distinguished Service Cross was presented to Dunkirk, a large British First World War naval base. The most famous British collective award is the George Cross to Malta in the Second World War. More recently a second collective George Cross has been awarded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross to the Royal Irish Regiment.

As stated in the National Filling Factory article, on 21 January 1919, the Edward Medal was gazetted to Lieutenant Arthur Hilary Bristowe, Works Manager, on account of the great courage and presence of mind which he displayed on the occasion of an explosion which occurred on 1 July1918, at the National Filling Factory at Chilwell. Lieutenant Bristowe died sometime before 1969 and therefore was unable to participate in the exchange of medals of that year when surviving Edward Medal recipients received the George Cross in lieu of their original medals. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd forgotten about the WWI examples - I found the award of the EM to the works manager after making the post here. The idea seems to result in a remark by a junior minister in the Minsitry of Munitions, and the factory became popularly known as the VC factory, but there was never anything official. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Medal sales

The comment in italics that some recipients have felt the need to sell their medals often to avoid rows between their children should be deleted. In fact the whole introduction paragraph should be ditched since such a small percentage of all VCs have actually been sold by the recipient. The motives for selling have been various and are unlikely to have included avoiding future rows between their children since a valid will trumps everything else.

It is nearly ten years since I drafted Table 3: UK Sales 1881-2000 on page 73 of Victoria Cross Presentations and Locations. The table covered 311 sales between 1881-1890 and 1991-2000 so early next year I will update and publish the table in a journal article which somebody will be most welcome to quote.

The £300 paid for the Edmund Barron Hartley medals was not the highest price for 1955 since it was less than four months later the Thomas Egerton Hale medals sold for £420. The 1966 record figure of £900 for a VC awarded after the Battle of the Somme was the then highest for that battle but two VC groups in 1964 (for Gallipoli) and in 1965 (for the South African War 1899-1902) had each sold for more than £1000. You should not believe newspaper headlines since the January 1969 record of £1700 the William Rennie had been bested nearly two years earlier in the sale of the Edward John Mott medals for £1950. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Which exact bit of text do you think should be removed, or more to the point, how would you rewrite it. I follow and agree with your opinions above but I am not sure how much you think needs to be trimmed. I think the point is still valid that these medals are valuable and that the auction values have been fairly incremental over the last 100 years. I certainly agree though with your opinions on the motives of sellers. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the heading Value should deleted and Public sales be used instead. Public sales are only half the story since just as many private sales if not more have occurred. Furthermore monetary value is only one aspect of value and since all the information in the section deals with public sales that is a good reason for giving it the title. As to the content I would drop the first paragraph, leave the second and drop the last two lines of the third. I would conclude by saying “Gallipoli is the most commemorated campaign in Australia and New Zealand and of the nine Victoria Crosses awarded to Australian troops during the campaign the Shout VC was the only one not held by the Australian War Memorial. When it came up for auction it created enormous interest in Australia.” That is the reason why it got the price as well as the fact that there was a genuine under bidder. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that I seem to have missed your reply, I would say go for it: edit it as you see fit. Your edits sound good and entirely reasonable to me. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made edits but left the examples intact. A pdf on the public sales chapter and the tables is avialable. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)