m Signing comment by 188.122.34.10 - "→Precedence: " |
David Underdown (talk | contribs) →Precedence: re |
||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
::Thanks Pfpdf. The text definitely states "...It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals." The infobox is headed "Precedence" and then disagrees with the above statement. I know this is picky, but I was hoping someone could either fix one of the above or add an explanation of the discrepancy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.122.34.10|188.122.34.10]] ([[User talk:188.122.34.10|talk]]) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::Thanks Pfpdf. The text definitely states "...It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals." The infobox is headed "Precedence" and then disagrees with the above statement. I know this is picky, but I was hoping someone could either fix one of the above or add an explanation of the discrepancy. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.122.34.10|188.122.34.10]] ([[User talk:188.122.34.10|talk]]) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:::Probably we ought actually to change to wording of the infobox slightly, I don't think precedence is quite the word we are looking for there. As Pdfpdf precedence is used in a number of different sense, in the lead we are really talking about the fact that the VC is alway the first medal to be worn by someone who holds it, and the postnominals precede all others (except the indication of Bart or Bt for a baronet), this is defined by the order of wear. In strict usage, the order of precedence refers to a slightly different concept, see for example, [[Order of precedence in England and Wales]]. Several sources say that the George Cross is in many senses the equivalent of the VC, see [[talk:George Cross#Victoria Cross vs George Cross]] for discussion of this issue from the other side as it were. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:45, 22 March 2010
Victoria Cross 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 is the main article in 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 April 9, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
"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
withon 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)
- I'm sure that
NickDavid 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'm sure that
- 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 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)
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: [1] [2]. Duckers' [3] 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)
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 [4] 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)
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)
Precedence
The text states that the VC takes precedence over the GC (although so far nobody has both). However, the infobox states that the VC & GC are equivalent... Which is correct? 188.122.34.10 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Both!
- Because they are referring to different things.
- In terms of "order-of-wearing" and related matters, "VC takes precedence over the GC".
- But in terms of '"Precedence" (which, by-the-way, I have yet to see an on-line definition of), "I am told" that they are the same.
- If you want more information about "Precedence", ask user talk:Abraham, B.S. - he seems to have access to definitive information.
- If you want more information about "order-of-wearing", I'd be happy to help.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Pfpdf. The text definitely states "...It takes precedence over all other orders, decorations and medals." The infobox is headed "Precedence" and then disagrees with the above statement. I know this is picky, but I was hoping someone could either fix one of the above or add an explanation of the discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.122.34.10 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Probably we ought actually to change to wording of the infobox slightly, I don't think precedence is quite the word we are looking for there. As Pdfpdf precedence is used in a number of different sense, in the lead we are really talking about the fact that the VC is alway the first medal to be worn by someone who holds it, and the postnominals precede all others (except the indication of Bart or Bt for a baronet), this is defined by the order of wear. In strict usage, the order of precedence refers to a slightly different concept, see for example, Order of precedence in England and Wales. Several sources say that the George Cross is in many senses the equivalent of the VC, see talk:George Cross#Victoria Cross vs George Cross for discussion of this issue from the other side as it were. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)