This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Victoria Cross is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Another VC list? Please separate British VC and VCfA awards - the VCfA was named in honour of the British VC but is a unique award of the Australian Honours System and should be separate to British VC awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The above wikitable listing is just for this talk page only with no intention of article inclusion anywhere, only archived history. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Alleged equality with the George Cross
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I will be removing this claim from various articles. The "reference" provided, Letter from the Cabinet Office, Honours and Appointments Secretariat, dated 17 September 2020, is not a published reference. The only trace I can find of the text within it is in the Wikipedia articles it has been added to as a "reference". Should this claim have been made in reliable, published, references I have no objection to its restoration, but there is currently zero evidence the "reference" provided meets WP:V. FDW777 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The most interesting footnote I have seen in a long time. Where did it come from. I saw some newspaper reports which could be used as a reference but I would love to see the full letter. I laughed at the last sentence 'The George Cross is, however, sequenced in the Order of Wear after the Victoria Cross to acknowledge the historic seniority of the Victoria Cross and for the practical reason that two medals cannot easily be worn". Firstly because it contradicts the equality of the awards and second because every Anzac Day I see many veterans who have only been awarded campaign and service medals manage to wear multiple medals quite easily. My view has always been that both awards have equal prestige but that the VC is senior to the GC. Frankly, with no civilian GC awards for gallantry in the UK since 1976, 44 years ago, and with the last four civilian GC awards overseas, the GC is defunct for civilian gallantry in the UK and is now only for the Military or the occasional UK civilian overseas. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair you did leave out the last two words of the sentence which were "joint first", details about the Order of Wear can be found in The Gazette or page 27 of the Army Dress Regulations. I did look for references but as of last night but could only find two tabloid newspapers talking about a social media post by Elizabeth Windsor not the 17 September letter, both of which were listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. FDW777 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
No. Scroll down to the "Sources" at the bottom. Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Sugar, did not see that. The Bannertalk 11:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I will list the unreliable tabloid references, so people can see there is potential for change in the coming days. The Scum use a headline of Queen confirms the George Cross IS on a par with the Victoria Cross – ending years of speculation, which is followed up by the article itself claiming A formal statement due tomorrow will end decades of speculation about the order of the gongs (the original article is timestamped 23 Sep 2020, 22:25, so "tomorrow" appears to have been postponed). The Express claims the Royal Family posted on Instagram: "The George Cross is the equivalent of the Victoria Cross, which rewards actors of bravery on military operations." Curiously I can find no evidence they did post any such thing on Instagram (unless it was posted as a "story" which disappears after 24 hours, which would seem somewhat unusual for an important statement), their George Cross image can be seen here and does not appear to contain the claim the Express attribute to them.
So while it does appear they may be some official announcement in the pipeline (if you believe The Scum) it hasn't happened yet. FDW777 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The IP editor at George Cross claims "This has been proved with a UK authoritative letter from the Honours secretariat". Nothing has been "proved" at all, since there is no evidence this "authoritative letter" exists other than someone mentioning it in a footnote. FDW777 (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
FDW777 I apologize for mocking 'joint award' a concept which escapes me. I was not mocking the decision, if it has been made, after 80 years to make them equal or equivalent awards. I was mocking the wording of the possible announcement. Australia in its Order of Wear specifically states that the VCfA and the VC are equivalent awards. If the MOD was serious, all they had to do was to look at the notes in the British Order of Wear for Order of Chivalry. ‘Those individuals who hold both Military and Civil Division Awards in the same Order of Chivalry wear both pieces of Insignia and if at the same level the first awarded is worn first’. It is academic since how likely is someone in the future to be awarded both the senior and junior highest awards. However, my interpretation of the statement is that today in the UK, both the VC and GC are of equal prestige and that the VC is the senior award. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind mocking, I just didn't realise it was as I thought you'd misread the claimed content of the letter. There's certainly room for debate about if they are equal or not, but I believe we jumped the gun several days ago using the apparently unpublished letter as a reference, especially since the public clarification from Elizabeth Windsor has yet to appear. FDW777 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The content of the unconfirmed reference seems to have it each way. The VC & GC Association gets what it wanted to hear but the VC is senior and is worn first. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Another round of where the metal comes from
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is an apparent omission in the subsection the addition of which would be an improvement in this Featured Article. During the years of the centenary anniversaries of the First World War (2014 to 2018) commemorative stones to VC recipients of the war were presented to and unveiled at the recipients' home towns. I have lost memory how that was organised, did a government department pay for them? Did it apply only within the UK? I know for example Oswestry in Shropshire received one, placed in Cae Glas Park, in honour of Harold Whitfield in 2018.Cloptonson (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Because of its rarity, the VC is highly prized ...
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am dropping ‘Because of its rarity’ and will start the second paragraph with ‘the VC is highly prized’. It is not rare compared to many medals including the George Cross, the four Albert Medals and the Conspicuous Gallantry Medals to name a few. The prestige of the VC has always been high and with so many now in public institutions, the number available for sale or auction is decreasing. Anthony Staunton (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)