Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia/Archive 1

Embedded list
I reverted the changes of PalawanOz because i think it breaches the Embedded list guideline. Where possible the article should consist of prose and the description did not have to be a list. I agree with the images and the unecessary data in the infobox, i did not revert them. I only reverted the formatting of the description section. In Victoria Cross which is currently a GA, the description is in prose format and this is deemed as acceptable. In the interests of conformity between articles i believe this change is correct. Woodym555 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had changed it to be a bulleted list to fit in with every other medal entry that I had created/edited over the last few months. Broadly, I had broken the Description section into 4 areas with bullets: the Obverse, the Reverse, the Suspender bar (if distinctive enough) and the Ribbon. eg: Star of Gallantry, Medal for Gallantry and pretty much every medal linked to the Australian Honours Order of Precedence and New Zealand Honours Order of Precedence. Whilst I acknowledge it was not a 'prose' style, I like to think it did make the articles more readable (in list style).PalawanOz 21:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your edit and i did see the formatting on those articles before i reverted it on here. The Embedded list is only a guideline but i think it is a successful one. There is Ignore all rules to consider, of course, but i do think the guideline works well within this article. To do something wrong simply because we have done so in the past is no excuse for doing it wrong in the future. I am not saying that you have done anything wrong, just that it goes against guidelines that are there for a reason. I am in no way saying that all the other articles should be changed just that in my opinion this article does flow better with continuous prose. The group of articles that this is linked to is the Victoria Cross topic as well as the other topics. If the article was ever put up for GA or FA which i do intend to do then i am sure that the review would come back and i think that consensus would be to have it in prose. Follow consensus, not policy is a key philosophy of Wikipedia and when this article comes up for GA i am sure that we will find consensus. Woodym555 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Lead doesn't seem to completely summarise the article, consider rewrite of it while it's on hold (capturing everything else currently in the article)


 * I have rewritten it, removing some things not needed whilst adding in annuity info. I think everything else is covered by it.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: ✅ - Well done on this
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: ✅
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: ✅
 * 5. Article stability? ✅
 * 6. Images?: What's the fair use situation with the first image? I think it needs a WP:FURG. Another image would be nice if possible.


 * I have added another image, as in the NZ article. With regards to the first image, it is Crown Copyright and can be used as long as it is not changed. It is used on the VC article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy  UCP 22:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll promote it now. Well done!  Giggy  UCP 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-assessment
This article from the west Australian indicated that a tribunal is being created to reassess previous recommendations that were declined. Gnangarra 03:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC) There is no way that this article can be considered a 'good article' as it states down the bottom that the Australian Labor Party won control of BOTH Houses of Parliament at the 200r Federal Election. - They did NOT win control of the Senate. -> *This has now been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.205.215 (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently very comfortably meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a great article since some kind soul has mentioned my name in the second last line. However, there are too many non Australian references and footnotes. Much is duplicated from the Victoria Cross entry whereas the emphasis should be on the similarities and differences of the Australian award with the Victoria Cross. I have collected some Australian references and in the next couple of weeks will revamp the entry. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure that the nationality of the references really matters, and since the medal is yet to be awarded, there does seem to be a natural limit on the purely Australian history in any case, but I look forward to seeign your changes. David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing missing as far as I am concerned is the history of the award. When was it first mentioned, when was it first cited, when did it go before Parliament? That is what is missing. The nationality of the references is irrelavent though I do look forward to seeing your changes. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I work best with deadlines so I gave myself a public deadline. Rather than too many non Australian references it would have been better expressed as missing Australian references including three editions of They dared mightily although the 2005 edition was renamed Victoria Cross: Australia's finest and the battle they fought. The online edition of the Australian Dictionary of Biography contains VC biographies of deceased recipients. As to references I will quote from the published gazette that promulgated the award. I was thinking of Belated awards to replace the heading Retrospective awards since all awards are retrospective.Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Enhancements
Thanks for the editing. I have been thinking of how to enhance the article and started at the start. My fault!! I should have said more was coming shortly but please correct my formatting (which I very much appreciate). What I want to do is to add primary references, describe the Victoria Cross for Australia as part of the Australian Honours System, compare it to the VC, VCFC and VCFNZ but delete duplicate material which rightly belongs to and is already included in the VC, VCFC and VCFNZ articles. My writing plan is as follows:
 * 1 History
 * 1.1	Victoria Cross awards to Australia
 * 1.2	Recommendations from the Governor General of Australia
 * 1.3	Victoria Cross presentations in Australia
 * 1.4	Public Sales and Auctions in Australia
 * 1.5	Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage
 * 1.6	Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

For instance the last 15 Victoria Cross awards to Australians were on the recommendation of the Governor General of Australia and not the British High Command. There is published Australian material on this aspect of the Victoria Cross. Presentations in Australia are different from presentations in Canada. While the number of presentations before World War 1 and the number of posthumous presentations since 1914 are similar for Australia and Canada the number of awards to living recipients in Canada since 1914 is one compared to 13 in Australia. Again there is published Australian material on this aspect of the Victoria Cross. And also on the claim that the very first personal Victoria Cross presentation to next of kin by the monarch or his representative occurred in Australia on the same day that King George V presented the first posthumous VC at Buckingham Palace. I am working on creating links to those articles that I can reference to in the article. I will finish my writing and put everything up at one time.Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is all good, but we have to remember that this is about the current medal, and not "The Victoria Cross in Australia." I do think that any Australian sources will be extremely helpful to the article, as will any information on whether it was discussed in Parliament first, and Bills on it, acts of Parliament etc. This is a huge hole in the article at the moment. I think comparing it as part of the Australian Honours System will also be a great asset.
 * Try and keep the text accessible where possible. Filling it with too much military and political language can be problematic. If you don't want to add it in piece by piece and want to do it as a whole, why not edit it in a sandbox, say User:Anthony Staunton/VCA and then move it across when it is finished. That is what I did for the VC article. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - the thing to remember about the start of the article (before the first heading) is that it is supposed to summarise the rest of the article - so it's best to make changes to the body of the article, and then work out how that needs to be reflected in the lead. I think there's inevitably some overlap between this and the other VC articles, although to a large extent we should be able to use the lead of those articles as the summary in this one (assuming that the leads there are well-written—which since they are all FAs, they should be).  With regard to Woody's comments, I think some treatment as to how Australian treatment of the original VC developed would naturally fit within this article, as it should shed some light on why a separate medal came to be seen as desirable.  If you need it, I may be able to trace the British end of any discussions (if they've been transferred to The National Archives).  David Underdown (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That was what was deemed to be missing in the last FAC for this article and I completely agree with it. We have no discussion in the article about how and why a separate VC was developed. Any help in shedding light on this would be very much appreciated!! Regards Woody (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As always the advice from both of you is sound. Woody, thanks for the sandbox suggestion. The Australian Labor Party has for many years been totally against the Imperial Honours System and in 1975 the Labor Government set up the Australian Honours System. While their reasons and analysis may have been flawed the decision to create an Australian system was sound and has always had widespread public support. Thankfully, except for three Australian soldiers in Afghanistan in the last 12 months, these are the only Australians who have been killed in fire fights since Vietnam. There was no rush for Australian operational gallantry awards until the Gulf War in 1991. I have the media release that announced the creation of the Victoria Cross for Australia which I will use but other than some editorials that was the extent of the public discussion. The public perception is that the Australian services can still receive the Victoria Cross but if an Australian was attached to the British and awarded the Victoria Cross permission from the Governor General would be required to wear the award and it would be treated in Australia as a foreign award as per the Order of Wear that states all Imperial awards received after 1992 are treated as foreign awards. Reading both your comments I deduce I need an introduction which summaries what is in the article which would be a description of the Victoria Cross for Australia, how the Victoria Cross developed in Australia and how provisions for the Victoria Cross will apply in the future for the Victoria Cross for Australia. For instance the Veterans Entitlements Act was amended to include the Victoria Cross for Australia in two separate sections of the act.Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything on the discussion would be helpful and neccessary for a comprehensive article. Was there any parliamentary discussion or was it unilateral from the PM? In terms of what goes in the Lead, yes, it should be a summary. If you read the Lead, you should be able to get the main points of the article. See WP:LEAD and WP:MILMOS for some information and guidelines. Good luck. Regards Woody (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AWM VCs
I have just made an edit in the "Awarding the medal" section on this page regarding the number of VCs held by the Australian War Memorial. The article stated 61 VCs are held, but this has not been so for a number of months now. The VC awarded to Major Peter Badcoe was removed from the collection and auctioned by has family a few months ago; thus reducing the collections holdings to 60 for the time being. The section also stated that the collection represented 61 Australian VCs when this is not the case. As stated in the AWM reference provided, two of the now 60 VCs in the collection are British; I have also re-worded this slightly to reflect this.

I have provided the above explanation for those wondering why I have made the edit, but I also have one more concern to address that I did not amend in my edit. Under the same section, it explains about the auction of the VC awarded to Alfred John Shout, and how Kerry Stokes has indicated it will be displayed in the AWM. Personally, I think this section is out of date considering that the medal set is in the AWM now, and has been for over a year. I did not re-word this, however, as I figured I would leave it up to consensus of whether it is out of date, and needs re-wording. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Defintitely needs updating, how about this attempt? David Underdown (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/bbbadcoe.htm dated 20 May 2008 says "It is intended the Peter Badcoe VC group will go on display in Adelaide and eventually be displayed in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, but will be brought back to Adelaide for special occasions." So it's in the main foyer of the SA Museum at the moment (http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/page/default.asp?site=1&id=1761), but I can't find anything that clarifies what time frame "eventually" is / will be. It's all a bit vague, isn't it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That looks good David; nice work. I think I remember reading something that said Badcoe's medal set will return to the AWM in twelve months from the date of purchase, so there is still a bit of time before that is to occur. However, I think there will at least be some media coverage, or an update in other websites (such as the AWM's) when the set does return to the AWM, so we should know when it does. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I almost forgot. The medal set of George Ingram was auctioned not long after Badcoe's, and the buyer indicated that the set will be donated to the AWM. As far as I know, this is yet to happen, however, it should be something to look out for. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ingram's is now held by the AWM, and I have updated the article accordingly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Salute
According to this article, "Tradition holds that even the most senior officer will salute a Victoria Cross recipient as a mark of the utmost respect for their act of valour". Is this worthy of inclusion? Also, I'm not sure if the recipient only gets saluted on receiving the VC, or from then onwards. --Surturz (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the Australian Army Ceremonial Manual states that a VC winner is only saluted if he is a senior officer (i.e. - if he would have been saluted anyway!!). Yes - Houston saluted Donaldson after his award, but then, Houston is an Air Force officer, not an Army officer! PalawanOz (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the British, which I presume carries over to the Australians, you are not mandated to salute them but it is customary to salute VC recipients. Woody (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe that is the way it is. A few months back I attended a function that Trooper Donaldson was at when he was in Canberra and my CO (a LTCOL) instructed us in this regard. Needless to say there was a bit of goodnatured payback (despite what many people think, some junior officers don't necessarily like to receive salutes, so there were a few that felt the need to give 'what for' to a digger instead). Of course it was all in good fun and no disrespect was intended. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

include with other VC recipients
If i was using Wikipedia to research recent VC recipients i would miss recent awardee Mark Donaldson as he isn't included in the category VC recipient "merely" having the Australian VC unlike for example Albert Jacka. Surely all varieties of the VC should be included in the VC recipient category?johnnybriggs (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it is an entirely separate medal, so some disinction does need to be made. However he is currently in category:Australian Victoria Cross recipients, no-one should really be in the top level category, they should all be in the appropriate sub-categories.  David Underdown (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What's it awareded for?
The second sentence in the article should state CLEARLY what the medal is awarded for - that garbled legalise official definition is further down is nothing short of horrible, and I would suggest for many unfathomable. It should say 'It is awarded 'For Valour' as is written on the medal.' Any problems with that? Mdw0 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Last person to receive
I made this change based on the discussion here  Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Queen of Australia?
Article mentions "the Queen of Australia". I didn't know that Australia had a Monarch, and I'm not sure that Australia recognizes any other nation's Queen as the "Queen of Australia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.22.223 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia is a "constitutional monarchy". Queen Elizabeth II is our Queen. 115.131.23.4 (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You could've checked here. Brutannica (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or here. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd sentence
"A Victoria Cross for Australia is usually presented by the Governor-General and occasionally by the Queen during an investiture ceremony".
 * Since there's only ever been 1 award made, it makes no sense to talk about what "usually" happens, let alone what else "occasionally" happens. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but in this particular case it doesn't seem to unreasonable to expect previous practice with the original VC to continue. The wording could be improved though.  David Underdown (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the last sentence. As for the first, WP:CRYSTAL.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible to get round crystal, something like "all awards of the original VC to Australians wre presented either by the Governor-General or the reigning monarch. The first VC for Australia was presented to Trooper Donaldson by the Governor-General, and on a subsequent visit to the United Kingdom he was received at Windsor Castle by the Queen."  David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's not so much "getting around CRYSTAL", as not attempting in the first place to predict what the protocol will be.  It says what the previous protocol was, and readers are subtly invited to assume that it will be followed into the future.  It's an assumption that would be widely made without invitation anyway.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * done. One slight issue.  I notice taht this point is not actually addressed in the body of the article at present.  There are a couple of places it could go, and really we need to sort out the sourcing, just in case one posthumous award ws just posted to the next of kin of something,  I'll see if anthony Staunton is about, he's probably best placed to address it.  Their are good sources for the subsequent reception at Windsor in Donaldson's own article.  David Underdown (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All original VCs awarded to Australians were presented either by the Governor-General or the reigning monarch.
The claim that all original VCs awarded to Australians were presented either by the Governor-General or the reigning monarch is almost correct since the same fact can be made about all VC presentations. Details of nearly 1200 VC presentations are known with about 920 awards by the monarch or the Prince of Wales and another 270 by a civil official such as a governor general or governor or a military commander.

86 of the 91 Victoria Crosses to members of the Australian forces were presented as follows: 47 King George V, 21 Gov Gen of Australia, 3 Lt Gov of W Aust 2 each Queen Elizabeth II, King George VI, Prince of Wales, Gov of Tasmania 1 each King Edward VII, Gov Gen of New Zealand,  Governors of NSW, Qld and S Aust, CinC S Africa, GOC 5th Army. Five VCs to Australia were not publicily presented. Statistics from Victoria Cross presentations and locations. Dennis Pillinger and Anthony Staunton, Woden, ACT, 2000.

The only presentation of the Victoria Cross to Australia on 16 January 2009 was interesting for a number of reasons. The announcement of the award and the presentation were made at the same time. As well as the Governor General of Australia the then Prime Minster of Australia was at the presentation. And a new tradition was created when the Chief of the Defence Force saluted the new recipient having being misinformed that this was a tradition for the original Victoria Cross. I remember 16 January 2009 since I was at Corunna in Spain commemorating the 200th anniversary of the death of Sir John Moore. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, thought you'd be able to give chapter and verse. So, I'll amend the lead to say "usually" presented by monarch or GG.  Were the five not publicly presented posthumous awards?  Then need to decide how much detial should be added to the body of the article to cover this.  David Underdown (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "usually" presented by monarch or GG is sound. The first presentation in 1857 set the standard where the monarch presented the Victoria Cross to surviving recipients. However in the case of deceased recipients it was not until the middle of the First World War that the first Victoria Cross was personally presented by the monarch or other official such as a governor general to next of kin. The earliest documented presentation was in Australia to the widow of Wilbur Dartnell by the Governor General of Australia at Government House Melbourne on 7 October 1916. Just hours later at Buckingham Palace on the same day King George V presented the Victoria Cross to the widow of Captain John Green, RAMC. Five Australians were among 36 deceased recipients whose medals were not personally presented to next of kin in the First World War. Only five Second World War recipients had no personal presentation to the recipient or next of kin. All 13 post Second World War awards have been personally presented, one to next of kin by King George VI, ten by the Queen including all six to surviving recipients and four to next of kin and finally two to next of kin by the Governor General of Australia. Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A heads up ...
This story suggests another Victoria Cross for Australia will be announced and awarded on Sunday. Interestingly, it seems to suggest that the name of the awardee will have their identity protected. (At the risk of breaching WP:FORUM, I would have thought that would defeat the whole purpose of the award)

I don't know how much weight to put on this report, and certainly we can't breach WP:CRYSTAL and include something now so just a heads up ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further news reports today seem to indicate that this is correct, however I agree we should wait until the event (and the official Department of Defence release) before we update. Better to do so and get it right the first time IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It got added anyway... sigh. Anotherclown (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Protected for 48 hours from now, that should stop the back and forth until its officially announced at which tme it can be unprotected just ping WP:RFPP for it removal or ask a sysop/admin who's arround Gnangarra 06:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that protection is really needed on the basis of the edits to the article to date, and have raised this on Gnangarra's talk page (I don't want to wheel war by simply lifting the protection!). Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've lifted the protection. I agree that there's a reasonable chance that nonsense will be added to this article over the next few days, but several active editors seem to have this on their watchlists, so hopefully it will be manageable. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording slightly to make it clear we can't be absolutely certain yet. Even if the press speculation turns out to be completely wrong, the degree of it seems notable in itself.  Hard to imagine what else the GG along with all those pollies and Defence Force types are going to be doing at the SAS HQ admittedly!  David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest watchlisting Ben Roberts-Smith. A pre-emptice page protection may be in order. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)