Talk:Victoria Cross/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Victoria Cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716121642/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page3.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page3.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160927134455/https://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/vic_cross/ to https://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/vic_cross/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531073731/http://www.gordonhighlanders.com/exhibits/index.cfm?page=63 to http://www.gordonhighlanders.com/exhibits/index.cfm?page=63
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006105140/http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/vic_cross/ to http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/vic_cross/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608090454/http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/shop?catId=9300091&pageType=Others&pageId=shp_prddetails&product=prod40680016 to http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/shop?catId=9300091&pageType=Others&pageId=shp_prddetails&product=prod40680016
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Beharry
The sentence about Johnson Beharry was added at the time of the award, when he was the most recent recipient and the first in a long time. It has survived until now, but given that two other awards have been made since, I think it is no longer worth mentioning here. It is just one of three relatively recent awards, and no longer the most recent. So I've deleted this sentence. Richard75 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Grammar query "in the face of the enemy"
The first line of this article includes the phrase "in the face of the enemy". This is a misquote but it is so common that you seldom see the correct quote used. Since it is not a quote should it have quotation marks? Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not exactly a misquote, but nor -- as I understand it -- is it a quotation. I have removed the quotes. I have also removed the wikilink to combat, as my understanding is that is not what is meant. For example, an unarmed medic can receive the VC for rescuing wounded men in the face of the enemy, without engaging in combat. MPS1992 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth Webber Harris VC?
I have made a page for Elizabeth Webber Harris who was awarded an honorary VC. Someone here may have some corrections on terminology, relating as to how much of a real VC this was etc. Please be bold. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)).
- It wasnt a real VC and certainly not honorary, a replica in appreciation maybe. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, changed to replica. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)).
Source of bronze
The article gives conflicting information on the source of the bronze used for the VC:
- (Introduction) 'Research has established that the metal for most of the medals made since December 1914 came from two Chinese cannon that were captured from the Russians in 1855'.
- (Manufacture) '… the metal used for almost all VCs since December 1914 is taken from antique Chinese guns, replacing an earlier gun. … A likely explanation is that these cannon were taken as trophies during the First Opium War …'
For consistency, would it be better to replace 'captured from the Russians in 1855’ and insert ‘possibly taken as trophies during the First Opium War.’?
A reference for the origin of the Chinese guns would help - is there one?
Hsq7278 (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2018
- Thanks for spotting that. There's no evidence for Russian cannon, and there are sources for Chinese. I have corrected the article. I'm not aware of any source for the Opium War, but I suppose if we captured them from the Chinese then it was probably in one of the Opium Wars. I'm not sure that's good enough for an encyclopedia though. Richard75 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a another slight inconsistency within the article. In the "Separate Commonwealth awards" section it says that the Australian and New Zealand medals are "cast from the same Crimean War gunmetal as the British VC" RichWA (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry
The current article starts with:
- "The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest and most prestigious award of the British honours system."
However the British government website does not back up this assertion.
- "Medals: campaigns, descriptions and eligibility". GOV.UK. 12 December 2012. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
It states:
- "The Victoria Cross is the premier Operational Gallantry..."
And also states:
- "The George Cross is the premier award given for non-operational gallantry or gallantry not in the presence of an enemy".
As the government web page:
- "'Heroes' gather for George Cross and Medal commemoration". Defence in the media. 24 September 2015. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
states:
- "Members of the Armed Forces can receive the GC for acts of gallantry not in the presence of the enemy, for example, military explosive ordnance disposal personnel"
So HMG probably considers that with the changing nature of warfare the MC is more likely to be awarded in the future and the British government does not want it implied that helping wounded men out of the line of fire of a robotic machine gun is any less valiant that a similar action against a manned machine gun.
This is not a particularly new position. In this 2006 British Government paper:
- "Fact Sheets - Guide to Honours". Defence Internet. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
It is stated in the paper
- "The Victoria Cross ranks with the George Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry."
and just a little lower down the same article:
- "The George Cross ranks with the Victoria Cross as the nation's highest award for gallantry,"
Because of the different age of the awards one can make a technical argument about precedence, but until a person is awarded both medals this is of academic interest only (angles on pinheads). As it is misleading for those who do not realise that prestige and precedence are not necessarily linked, it should not be presented in the lead, but if it must be mentioned then it should be in the body of the article.
Given the British Government's position what is the source that covers the first sentence in this Wikipedia article? -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- (Since the end of World War II)
List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign
- 20 individuals (15 UK, 0 CA, 4 AU, 1 NZ) have received the Victoria Cross since World War II.
- † denotes Victoria Cross awarded posthumously. Shown chronologically.
All VC citations of those from the above table show exact dates except for the one from New Zealand, showing only a year. Based on the references provided, I have included 18 June 2004 in the date column for Willie Apiata.
Concerning Willie Apiata's VC citation, writer Nicky Hager says "The most obvious sign of the block on information was that the Victoria Cross citation did not even include the usual details of where and when the act of bravery occurred." Hager uncovered those details and revealed the gunfight occurred in the early hours of Friday, June 18, 2004, in a remote part of dry and mountainous central Afghanistan, north of Kandahar. Continuing, Hager writes, "If there were secrets to protect about the June 18, 2004 gun battle, they were that it had little to do with fighting terrorism or making Afghanistan a safer or better place. In the years following these New Zealand patrols, central Afghanistan became more hostile and dangerous, not less. Willie Apiata was a good guy in a bad war", Hager concludes.[1][2]
References
- ^ Sunday Star-Times (4 September 2011). "US played dirty: Apiata claims". Stuff. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
- ^ Hager, Nicky (2011). Other People's Wars: New Zealand in Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror. Craig Potton Publishing. ISBN 978-1-877517-69-3. Retrieved 16 September 2020.
@Moriori: The above is a wikitable I put together for showing all individuals who have received the Victoria Cross since the conclusion of World War II, which itself is based off of the one at List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. I believe Willie Apiata's article should show the date that is missing from his VC citation someplace in his article. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)