Talk:Victoria Cross for New Zealand

Proposing Move

I suggest that this page be moved to Victoria Cross for New Zealand, which currently redirects here. The full name of the award this page is about is the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Victoria Cross (New Zealand) might be an appropriate title for a page about the awards of Victoria Crosses to New Zealanders, but that is not what this page is about.

Thoughts? Comments? Objections? Quadparty 02:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i think you should move the page as and when you can. Woodym555 06:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion - given that we seem to have a significant degree of support (and given the sound rationale of the suggestion), I have made the move.

Xdamr^talk 13:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The best GAN I reviewed

2. Factually accurate?: I know a little about the subject

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all major aspects.

4. Neutral point of view?: I've seen no bias

5. Article stability? History shows no recent edit war

6. Images?: Nice images.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — -Flubeca^Talk 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maker

Do we know who made the first medal? Was it the same outfit that has made all the Imperial VCs? Albatross2147 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is still made from the gunmetal captured during the Crimean War and it is made by Hancocks. I have made this clear in the article now. Woody (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How many New Zealanders?

The lead section says the original VC has been awarded 23 times to 22 individuals and the awarding the medal section says 21 times, yet the link to the List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality shows 25 awards to 24 individuals. Presumably the list is correct and the two sections here need to be amended. --DavidCane (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect different sources may give different answers as there are a few with dual nationality and so on. But we should at least be consistent, and footnote any quibbles. David Underdown (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, I suspect Freyberg and William Sanders weren't being counted as this article also said that only 11 were awarded in WWI, whereas the list gives 13. I think I 've straightened this out now. David Underdown (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sale of medal

The lead says "Due to its rarity, the VC is highly prized and the medal has been sold for over £200,000 at auction." Is this referring to the NZ-VC (of which there's only one, so of course it's rare) or VCs in general? If it refers to the one and only NZ-VC, surely this should be made clear: if not, the ambiguity should be removed, as this is not an article about VCs in general. Physchim62 (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just made much the same comment about the Main Page blurb. I note the Victoria Cross article has the exact same wording (except it says £400,000 and it has a source), and the Bill Apiata article says he donated his NZVC to New Zealand, so I agree this needs to be clarified, or removed as inapplicable. I'm going to be bold and remove it, feel free to revert if you want to discuss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Metal

The sentence on the true origin of the metal was rather confusing/misleading since it appeared to be a misreading of the sources. I've tried to improve it here [1]. My understanding from the 3 sources particularly the Guardian one is that the X-rays have little to do with establishing the origin of the cannons. The X-rays simply showed that the earlier medals were made from metal originating from a different source which is significant since amongst other reasons it's sometimes claimed all VCs were made from this metal. This isn't particularly relevant to this article (since the one and only VCNZ was made from this metal) so IMHO is not necessary. The reason it's known the cannons are Chinese isn't clearly stated but my assumption is the design etc make it obvious the cannons are Chinese not Russian. Finally while one of the sources uses the word antique, I think that's best left out. My understanding from the Guardian source is that it's still theoretically possible these cannons were use Sebastopol but there's no evidence for this so it seems unlikely. Saying they are antique in the current context seems to me to imply they are significantly older then Sebastopol and therefore could not have been used there but that doesn't seem to be the case. Any further working on the wording is welcome but I think careful reading of the sources is needed to ensure we actually say what the sources are saying. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Precedence

Does either the warrant for the VC for NZ or the NZ Order of Wear state that the VC for NZ have equivalent precedence? Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria Cross for New Zealand. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070609182751/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/VictoriaAndGeorgeCrossHoldersTheWorldsMostExclusiveClub.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/VictoriaAndGeorgeCrossHoldersTheWorldsMostExclusiveClub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria Cross for New Zealand. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110927091522/http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.941 to http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.941

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FA concerns

• " it is described by most commentators as being crimson or "wine-red"" - cited source doesn't mention this
• "This was originally to have been FOR BRAVERY" - source says it was actually "FOR THE BRAVE"?
• Per the New Zealand government, the criteria were changed from that of the original so that those doing peacekeeping could qualify too. Should this be mentioned?
• The paragraph beginning "The barrels of the cannon in question are stationed outside the Officers' Mess" is unverifiable. The only ref in the whole paragraph is a generic link to Hancocks' website

• I have significantly revised this paragraph and in doing so, removed this. I think it is a little of tangent anyway. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "The Canadian Victoria Cross also includes metal from the same cannon, along with copper and other metals from all regions of Canada." - source doesn't mention copper, rather an 1867 Confederate metal of unstated composition

• I haven't got to this at the time of making this comment, but envisage removing this statement as it seems a little off topic given the article focus should be the NZ version. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• "awards are still made by the jewellers Hancocks from the gunmetal used for the originals." - possibly a ref placement issue but the only source in the paragraph after this statement makes no mention of Hancocks.

I've found the degree of source-text issues here to be concerning (and I haven't checked even a majority of the sources). @Zawed and Woody: - any interest in trying to get the ref placement squared away, or should this one go to WP:FAR? Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this now. I have a couple of NZ-based sources that can be used to replace the dubious cites. Zawed (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What are the dubious sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, dubious was probably the wrong word to use but I was referring to the ones that don't support the facts mentioned in the article. Zawed (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)