Jump to content

Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

The article needs correction. The Golden Jubilee Medal was not awarded in New Zealand. Ncox 01:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It also needs to be split up - the UK medal was called the Golden Jubilee Medal 2002. I'm not sure how it differed from the Canadian medal, but given that it was not awarded as a joint Commonwealth award there is probably no real reason to join the two (or more) Golden Jubilee medals in one article.
Xdamrtalk 02:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal redirect here?

[edit]

The medal was an official issue in the UK (see http://www.britishmedals.info/golden_jubilee_medal_2002.html) and all Commonwealth territories, so why does it redirect as if the medal was primarily (or even only) issued in Canada? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this article is weirdly Canadian-centric for an essentially British medal. Should be made into an article about the medal in general, and include references to other regions in which it was issued. --199.4.27.122 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably Canadian-centric because nobody's bothered to add information on the issue of the medal in the Queen's other realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about the same question; and IMO, two plausible answers seem equally relevant -- compare Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal:
  • Honors attending the Queen of Canada are not treated in precisely the same way as for the Queen of Australia or the Queen of New Zealand or the Queen of the United Kingdom
  • Although countries other than Canada doubtless struck medals during the Golden Jubilee, only one Wikipedia article has been created thus far ... and the text is consistent with WP:V, or in other words: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
The thrust of the diffs above take it as axiomatic that Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is "an essentially British medal." I take the point, but there is nothing internally inconsistent in the article itself. The "problem" has to do with the article(s) not yet created, don't you think? --Tenmei (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that "essentially British" comment; we should avoid such biases.
Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal should serve as the model for this one; I don't think we need to create new articles for the medal in each realm. But, you're right in that whatever's added to this one, it must be reliably sourced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Select recipients

[edit]

The edit summary which deleted this section here is surely prescient, not wrong; but the rationale is premature. I propose restoring the section. In addition to its informative value, the section serves as an indirect invitation to improve this article and related subjects. Compare and consider, e.g., Japanese Canadians#Prominent Canadians of Japanese ancestry?

In due course -- when the section becomes unwieldy -- the accumulated names can be moved and recreated as a linked corollary, e.g.,

{{Main|List of Canadian recipients of Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal}}


Presumably, as the list evolves, it will continue to be limited to those who are noteworthy for something other than being awarded this medal; or in other words, the cohort will only include those who are already featured in a Wikipedia article? For example, please compare and consider the reasoning at Talk:Order of the Sacred Treasure#Status notability? and Talk:Order of the Sacred Treasure#Status verifiability? Does this seem to suggest a reasonable strategy going forward? --Tenmei (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said in the edit summary when I deleted the list. But, to that I would add: who's prominent and who is not is a matter of personal perception. I also don't understand the need for the section at all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is perhaps understandable to conflate "select" with "prominent" in a dynamic list, but this intuitive reasoning is inaccurate. I take your point; but in this instance, the selection process establishes no prominence other than that the list encompasses those who have an article in Wikipedia for some other reason than the award of this medal. In this context, a few examples -- even the randomly selected names listed in this article -- become illustrative, hence meaningful. As the data accumulates, the need for discrimination among select recipients will become more focused, but not yet. Does this help explain? Compare e.g.,Order of the Sun (Peru) or Order of Cultural Merit of Korea, which are in an early stage of article development.
In other words, your argument is persuasive when explained in a context established by Order of Canada#Additional honours, but it is less valid in other circumstances. Does this help? --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it helps my position, yes. There are thousands of individuals in the Order of Canada, each one of them having received the Golden Jubilee Medal in 2002. There must be hundreds with bio articles on Wikipedia, and that's just one country.
Further, I still don't see the need. It isn't even that exclusive of an honour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is reasonable and practical. You opinions are understandable and coherent; and your views are consistent with a "less is more" perspective. For me, this thread has helped to focus on a few noteworthy aspects of articles like this one, e.g.,
  • A generalized concept of perceived need. IMO, the need for an illustrative dynamic list of select recipients is arguably more important in a short article, less important in a mature article like Order of Canada. However, every article about any subject requires specific illustrative details. In some instances, I need examples in order to understand. It's the way I learn; and I would argue that many others need examples for the same reason.
  • A dynamic list as an invitation. This listing convention successfully encourages editors to tweak or expand the article, which is especially important for small articles like this one. In our wiki-venue, I know that lists function in this way because I've seen it happen.
  • A few linked names does no harm. At worst, you appear to argue that that the list or the linked names are unnecessary ... which is not the equivalent of unhelpful.
Shall we agree to revisit this thread in six months? Perhaps your opinion or mine will change; or maybe there will be other editors whose points of view will help us parse the issues differently. --Tenmei (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally perplexed

[edit]

There is something here I terribly don't understand: HOW do you check if somebody has really had say THAT medal (the Canadian version in my example); I checked all the listed references on the page (and more) for that essential information and it does not seem to be available anywhere on the Internet or even in book form. Are the lists of recipients of medals a well-kept secret? Therefore what would be the purpose of such medals, if you cannot learn who has gotten them? Am I missing something here? Please help if you know the answer, I'm really scratching my head with this! --70.80.207.43 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC) alainr345[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II_Golden_Jubilee_Medal&oldid=1207526036"