Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:41, 8 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Cross for Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Victoria Cross for Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Victoria Cross for Australia is part of the Victoria Cross series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2009.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 2, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
September 5, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
November 26, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 30, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
August 5, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 7, 2007.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2011.
Current status: Featured article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Orders, decorations, and medals FA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on 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.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific FA‑class

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

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Australia: Military history FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Victoria Cross for Australia 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
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 15, 2013.

Archives

Archive 1

Umm, WHAT?

can someone explain why is says only 2 have been awardered?!?!?! the list i have (2008) says theres 6 for the boer war, 67 for WW1 (9 of those from gallipoli) 2 for russia, 20 for WW2 and 4 for vietnam, thats 102!!! not 2! why is there only the two from 2009 and 2011 not the others? 58.167.196.164 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's explained in Victoria Cross for Australia#History. To cut a short story shorter, the VCs awarded to Australians prior to 1991 were the British VC. In 1991 the separate VC for Australia was established. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What he said: read the article. As an aside, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients is the complement article. Woody (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i accept that but why is there always seprate articals for things that could be included in a single artical, especialy when it comes to lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.196.164 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent

In the UK, the Victoria Cross and George Cross are held in equally high esteem and this has led to the incorrect claim which can even be found in UK government media releases that they are equivalent awards. The British Order of Wear is quite explicit that the George Cross ranks immediately below the Victoria Cross. Sadly, the George Cross has been the poor cousin of the Victoria Cross in Australia and more sadly the Cross of Valour has been completely overshadowed by the VC for Australia. The claim in the right hand box that the Cross of Valour is equivalent to the VC for Australia is contradicted not supported by the two references quoted. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Order of Wear is not the same thing as precedence. On the page for the Victoria Cross it has a sourced reference (reference no. 52) which says the George Cross has equal precedence to the Victoria Cross, but is awarded second because it is newer (ie, it is second in the Order of Wear). The Order of Wear does not really relate to how awards rank in relation to each other. It's the precedence that determines the rank of one award in relation to another. The George Cross was clearly intended to rank alongside the Victoria Cross (reference is on the George Cross page, reference no.5, said by King George VI), and the Cross of Valour is just an Australian replacement award for the George Cross, with equal precedence to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.157.98 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference no. 5 on the George Cross page quotes King George VI who said that ‘the George Cross ... will rank next to the Victoria Cross’ which trumps MOD media releases. In 1975, the Australian Honours System commenced with the first awards being the Order of Australia, the Australian Bravery Awards and the first attempt at Australian Defence long service awards. The Australian Bravery Awards were not inspired by the George Cross and other British non operational bravery awards but the Canadian Bravery Awards although Australia followed the British practice by having an Australian Commendation for Bravery. However, the Cross of Valour in Australia like the George Cross has a very low profile compared to the Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit has been reverted: I changed "highest honour" to "highest military" honour. pdfpdf said: To say it is the highest military award implies that there is a civil award that is higher. There isn't. Quite simply, it is the highest award." It does not imply any such thing. The civilian George Cross/Cross of Valour is equal in the Australian honours system to the VC. My edit should stand. Marchino61 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) Well, if it does NOT imply that there is a higher civilian honour, what is the point of saying it's the highest military honour? Please explain.

b) Are you saying that is NOT the (equal) highest honour?

Also, not only is it bad ettiquette, it is contrary to wikipedia policy for you to revert my challenge to your edit before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please revert your edit until such time as consensus is reached. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the confusing elements is the Order of Wearing v Order of Precedence issue. The Commonwealth Table of Precedence equates the Order of Wearing with an Order of Precedence 32. Recipients of decorations and honours taking precedence over Knights Bachelor and Knights of various Orders (including Knights Bachelor), all according to precedence promulgated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette Monday June 17 1996. . This is also the case in the use of postnominals, in that they appear after the name in precedence as per the Order of Wear. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 :b) Are you saying that is NOT the (equal) highest honour?
 :Also, not only is it bad ettiquette, it is contrary to wikipedia policy for you to revert my challenge to your edit before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please revert your edit until such time as consensus is reached. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 00:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
+::: One of the confusing elements is the Order of Wearing v Order of Precedence issue. The [http://www.dfat.gov.au/protocol/Protocol_Guidelines/A22.html Commonwealth Table of Precedence] equates the Order of Wearing with an Order of Precedence ''32. Recipients of decorations and honours taking precedence over Knights Bachelor and Knights of various Orders (including Knights Bachelor), all according to precedence promulgated in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette Monday June 17 1996. ''. This is also the case in the use of postnominals, in that they appear after the name in precedence as per the Order of Wear. --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)