Talk:Queen's South Africa Medal

Repeated deletions
RobinClay, your repeated deletion of a paragraph is unacceptable. I am reverting your edit once again since the paragraph you keep on removing is just as much part of the war as the preceding paragraph about the difficulties experienced by the invading British forces. The concentration camps, arguably the most significant and contentious British strategy of the war, and the issues raised about them by Emily Hobhouse and others like Lloyd-George, all took place in 1901 while the war only ended on 31 May 1902. The paragraph is therefore not about events AFTER the War like you seem to believe. True, the article is about the campaign medal, but the war is what the medal was awarded for and a brief mention about the applicable campaign is therefore not inappropriate. See, for example, South Africa Medal (1854), South Africa Medal (1880) and Natal Native Rebellion Medal. Furthermore, section headings should not contain wikilinks. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed this paragraph. It isn't suitable for an article about the medal. There is a whole page on the War which can contain this information. There is no reason to include these particular details, out of all known information about the War, unless they can be linked clearly to the medal (as is done in the first paragraph). Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted the deletion, again. Key aspects of the war the medal was awarded for are relevant in the article and this particular strategy was literally what won the war for the Crown. The repeated removal of this paragraph creates the impression that its "offensiveness" has less to do with being "unrelated" than with being an inconvenient fact. - André Kritzinger (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about the War, it is an article about a medal. It isn't desirable to repeat detail about singular aspects of the war here; there's a whole Wikipedia article on the war. Imagine if every article about a medal awarded in a war went into detail about things, apparently chosen at random, that happened during the war. Does every article about World War II medals need to mention the Holocaust, or the atomic bombs, for example? Why, of all of the "key aspects" of the South African war, should the concentration camps be mentioned here? The sufferings of British forces is obviously more relevant to the medal, in that it was a medal awarded to British forces.
 * André Kritzinger, the repeated removal of the paragraph shows nothing more than that several contributors don't think it belongs in this article. No-one called it offensive. It isn't helpful to cast aspersions. Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the word genocide for 2 reasons. Firstly, there is no supporting evidence and secondly, it wasn’t genocide. Genocide is a deliberate policy to wipe out a specific group of people. There was no such policy; rather, it was a policy of neglect, ignorance and a callous deregard for human life. That is not genocide,however awful it may been. Kentish 2 October 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:CBC7:BD01:B99D:B20C:4E67:F9D6 (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Queen's South Africa Medal. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070808092141/http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz:80/category/h/h2.html to http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz/category/h/h2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Thank you. André Kritzinger (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Section on clasps
At present information on clasps is divided into two lists, one showing the order they were worn, and one dividing them into 'state', 'date', and 'battle' clasps. Would the article be tidier and easier to read if the two lists were combined to provide a single list of the clasps awarded, while still including all the information currently provided? Grateful for views User:Hsq7278 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2018

Further to the above, I have now combined the two lists. User:Hsq7278 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2018