Talk:Australian honours order of wearing

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

Ribbon pictures[edit]

I would like to see a small picture showing the ribbon applicable to each award next to each entry. Any views? I am happy to start putting some in as an example in the next few days PalawanOz 01:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I'm not 100% sure, but it would seem that all the content of Australian campaign medals is already duplicated on the longer, more nicely organized page here. If someone could take a look and merge whatever's worthwhile to move, it would be great .LordAmeth 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard practice with these decorations/medals related articles to distinguish between decorations for (eg) bravery/distinguished service and campaign medals (eg British campaign medals, New Zealand campaign medals). If anything the campaign medal-related content ought really to be moved from this page, into Australian campaign medals. This page is quite nicely done, but at the moment it is very much a list. Ideally this page ought to serve as an introduction to the whole topic of Australian awards, describing their history, evolution etc. The following New Zealand articles show the structure that is being aimed for - in imperfect form admittedly:
Xdamrtalk 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I don't see a problem with keeping the Campaign medals on a seperate page (and, indeed, I think it might make more sense), I dont really want to see this 'orders of precedence' page broken up as per the Kiwi gallantry and bravery awards - since the point of this page is to show where they sit respective to each other. Perhaps the Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia page should be included in the discussion? At any rate, I will look at the Campaign medal page and update it a little, in anticipation of keeping the pages seperate, and linking to them from here PalawanOz 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if Australia has diverged from usual Commonwealth usage, but from memory the UK order of precedence doesn't specifically list the various campaign medals in order of wear. If Australia follow the same pattern then it perhaps the campaign medals ought to be moved off the 'Order of Precedence' page?
Xdamrtalk 12:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good point re. Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia. Turn that into the general introduction and keep this page as a straight list of the order of precedence (with or without campaign medals). How's that? (we'll have to write this into the WP:ODM guidelines). --Xdamrtalk 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Order of Wear, as found at this ADF page, does actually include the Campaign medals in the order of precedence (although, admittedly as an annex, hence the ordering on this page)PalawanOz 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'll have a trawl around and see if I can find another version of the Order of Wear to confirm this. It certainly looks like campaign medals form a part of the list, at least according to this, but of course this might be down to sloppy policy document drafting.
Incidentally, do you suppose we can dispense with the merge suggestion now? LordAmeth hasn't said much more and I'm not in favour, what about you?
Xdamrtalk 12:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official order of wear is held at the Australian Government It's an Honour website. The ADF version is a slightly later version to include a couple of campaign medals that aren't yet on the It's an Honour site. I concur re removing the merge suggestion - the question now is do we delete the Campaign Medals from this page, whilst retaining their own page? PalawanOz 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I phrased my comment above badly... at any rate, I have deleted the Campaign medals from this page, and redirected to the enhanced Australian campaign medals page PalawanOz 12:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

What about moving to List of Australian Honours Order of Precedence]]? Harland1 (t/c) 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DistinguishedServiceCrossRibbon.jpg[edit]

The image Image:DistinguishedServiceCrossRibbon.jpg is was used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check that there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article. This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GeorgeMedalRibbon.jpg[edit]

The image Image:GeorgeMedalRibbon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no image copyright problem - the bot is responding to erroneous information. The image is NOT being used under "fair use". The copyright reads: The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. and hence does NOT require fair use rationales. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign's orders[edit]

I'm curious as to how the orders who's membership is within the personal gift of the Queen of Australia are considered not Australian honours. User:Pdfpdf seems to want to classify them as though they are the same as the Order of the Bath or the Order of the British Empire. But they patently are not the same. Unlike those orders, induction into the membership of the Order of Merit, Companion of Honour, and Royal Victorian Order are made without British ministerial advice; the appointment of Australians into them is entirely within the prerogative of the Queen as Queen of Australia. If Pdfpdf can show otherwise, I'd be intrigued to see it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I didn't notice this posting until a minute ago.
"I'm curious as to how the orders who's membership is within the personal gift of the Queen of Australia are considered not Australian honours." - They're not - I mis-read / mis-interpreted your edit.
"User:Pdfpdf seems to want to classify them as though they are the same as the Order of the Bath or the Order of the British Empire." - No, I didn't, and don't - you mis-read / mis-interpreted what I wrote.
"But they patently are not the same." - I agree, and that's what I said - the latter have "*" next to them - the former do not.
"But they patently are not the same. Unlike those orders, induction into the membership of the Order of Merit, Companion of Honour, and Royal Victorian Order are made without British ministerial advice; the appointment of Australians into them is entirely within the prerogative of the Queen as Queen of Australia." - With the exception of "Companion of Honour", I agree.
"If Pdfpdf can show otherwise, I'd be intrigued to see it." - Actually, I doubt you'll be intrigued - it's rather boring! Have a look at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/docs/order_of_wearing.pdf
I got distracted by "Companion of Honour" and didn't pay enough attention to the rest of your edit. Mea culpa. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Reference linked by Pdfpdf is quite clear, awards in the Queen's Prerogative are not Australian Honours and Awards, however they are not considered foreign awards either and are fully integrated into the Australian Order of Wear. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

prior to 6 October 1992 versus after 5 October 1992[edit]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the current precedence come first(after 5 October 1992), and the previous precedence come after (before 6 October 1992)? For 19 years the after 5 October order seems to be the order. If I am off base, enlighten me. I try to learn something new every day. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it would make more sense. Good idea. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page does seem a little cumbersome. Why are there two different sections before&after? Why not just have them combined with the lead including a sentence regarding the ones in bold are within the current Australian system and if awarded after the date then worn as Foreign awards. After all, that would more accurately reflect the Its and Honour Reference. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two different sections before&after? - Several reasons:
The "before" section applies to awards made 20 or more years ago. It won't be that much longer before there won't be anyone alive who received a medal before 6 October 1992, at which point that list becomes relevant only to historians.
The "before" section is 50% longer, and those extra 50% are of marginal interest to those who are Australian born after World War II, and thus never eligible for many of them. Even in the "after" list, of the many different medals awarded by the Queen, the actual number awarded to Australians is quite small, so very few are subject to the problem of needing to know the position to put their new medal.
There were other reasons, but I can't think of them at the moment.
The two lists reflect the Order of Wear completely accurately - up to its date of issue - it's well past time for the document to be brought up to date. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting point of view. Even if someone was say 50 when they received an Imperial award there is at least 10 more years that they would be applicable. The paramount reasoning is that the official Australian Order of Precedence is detailed in an inclusive way that has one list... not two. Wikipedia should more represent the official version not a personal view. Thirdly, it does make it rather confusing and cumbersome having two versions. One combined list would be a better portrait for the page... at least until the Office of the Governor General issues a list without Imperial Awards in it!--Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paramount reasoning ... - Sorry, I don't get your point.
Wikipedia should more represent the official version - Why?
not a personal view - It's not a personal view. Maybe it's a different view, but it's still the same facts.
Thirdly, it does make it rather confusing - Actually, the point of the separation is to weed out the stuff that is no longer relevant and make things less confusing.
One combined list would be a better portrait for the page - Again, your opinion. I have a different opinion. I just don't see the point of having one long list that's half full of stuff that's no longer relevant to the current circumstances, and hasn't been for 20 years. No doubt there are others with yet other opinions.
Anyway, that's the end of my 2c worth. Que sera, sera. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation/Jubilee Medals[edit]

Hello, this may seem a little odd but would'nt it be prudent to add the QE2 Golden Jubilee and Diamond Jubilee Medals (with a note that their award is strictly limited). Reason; although the Australian Government doesent recognise or award the those two medals all Victoria Cross recipients recieve them as a personal gift of the Monarch, for example 'Keith Payne' recieved the QE2 Golden and will next year recieve the QE2 Diamond. If this sounds like a bad idea then please relpy so. Cheers, Nford24 (talk) 18:20, 04 November 2011 (AEST)

I will have to get the reference but the latest info from Honours and Awards is that neither the Golden or Diamond Jubilee medals are issued under the Australian system and are therefore considered foreign awards. This is certainly the case for a lot of ex-British servicement who have subsequently transfered to the ADF. They are not listed in the Australian Order of Precedence and therefore should not be included here. (Unfortunately!!!) --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Oliver, I don't think that's commpletely correct.
the latest info from Honours and Awards is that neither the Golden or Diamond Jubilee medals are issued under the Australian system and are therefore considered foreign awards. - Where did that information come from?
There are, in fact, three classes of award: Australian, Foreign, and "those given by the Queen" (I can't remember the correct name/terminology).
The third class includes: Knight/Lady of the Garter KG/LG; Knight/Lady of the Thistle KT/LT; Order of Merit OM; Royal Victorian Order GCVO/KCVO/DCVO/CVO/LVO/MVO/RVM and the Coronation and Jubilee medals.
So yes, those medals of ex-British servicement that fall in the "foreign" category aren't listed here, but "those given by the Queen" are listed.
So, as Nathanael says, "all Victoria Cross recipients receive them as a personal gift of the Monarch".
I saw a much better explanation than mine somewhere in the last couple of days - I'll see if I can locate it. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it:
awards in the Queen's Prerogative are not Australian Honours and Awards, however they are not considered foreign awards either and are fully integrated into the Australian Order of Wear. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 May 2012, The Prince of Wales personally presented jubilee medals to 28 current and former Commonwealth citizens who have been awarded the Victoria Cross, the Victoria Cross for Australia, and the George Cross. These recipients came from all over the United Kingdom, as well as from Australia, Nepal, and Indonesia. The group also had representatives for Malta and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, both of them being collective recipients of the George Cross.[1]
(I see Ben Roberts-Smith has grown a beard and continues to be 6" taller than everyone else.)
I missed this comment: They are not listed in the Australian Order of Precedence and therefore should not be included here.
They are not listed in the Australian Order of Precedence document because that document is out-of-date! (I wish they would update it.) I believe that the Department of Defence made an updated list that included the Golden Jubilee medal - I guess I'll see if I can find that one, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Found it, but it doesn't include the Golden Jubilee medal. Well, it is mentioned somewhere - I'll keep looking. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Bottom right of page 2 says: The procedure for the issue of the Golden Jubilee Medal 2002 was entirely different. It was not offered to Australia for general issue to Australians. As a consequence, very few Australians are entitled to the Golden Jubilee Medal 2002. The only exception is the small number of people who received the medal as a personal gift from the British Government. For example, Australia’s only two living Victoria Cross recipients did receive the medal.
Doesn't help with Order of Wear, but does give answers to a few questions that are identical to Nathanael's statements. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting on a reply from the Honours Secretariate in regards to the Jubilee Medals (Golden and Diamond), I've also written a letter to Warren Truss (my local Federal MP) in regards to this as well. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 04:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latest Order of Precedence was issued in 2007 and does not include the Golden Jubilee Medal issued in 2002. I personally don't like it but unfortunately we can't assume that it is included when it is not specifically stated anywhere.--Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to assume anything. It must be specifically stated somewhere, because Keith Payne has been wearing the Golden Jubilee medal in that position for the last 10 years, and he wouldn't be doing so if he didn't have a good reason. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Edward Kenna also received one, but I haven't yet determined where her wore it. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are forgetting that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability through the use of reliable sources. Basing order of wear on a picture of how a soldier who retired in 1975 wears his decorations and medals is probably not what would be considered a reliable source. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You misread, or misinterpreted, what I wrote. The point of what I am saying is: We don't have to assume anything; it must be specifically stated somewhere. I am most certainly NOT "Basing order of wear on a picture", and as for "Perhaps we are forgetting", I think everyone involved in this discussion is more than a little aware of Wikipedia's pillars. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pdfpdf, I found this picture of Edward Kenna http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01439/ted_kenna_1439668f.jpg - (I have no intent to breach any copyright laws or who-ha, my intent is to merely show a picture). If you look carefuly you can see the QE2Golden before the Centenary medal (although thats what I can see). Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is my point. The page should reflect the documented/verifiable Order. When we find more detailed info then we can update it. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I gather your current response to Nathanael's original question can be summarised: given that neither the 2007 Order of Wear nor the Department of Defence document [4] mentions them, we also should not mention them, until such time as we can locate a document that does mention them.
Hmmmm. I have nothing to add. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: the latest info from Honours and Awards is that neither the Golden or Diamond Jubilee medals are issued under the Australian system and are therefore considered foreign awards. - Where did that information come from? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, otherwise we are coming to our own conclusion not basing the article on verifiable facts. For latest info see Defgram and DPMC letter. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not. Just because we haven't located the reference doesn't mean "we are coming to our own conclusion". Nor does it mean we are "not basing the article on verifiable facts". Just because we can't verify it does not mean that it can't be verified. It's analogous to the situation with the Chevalier of the Legion of Honour ribbon. (Except in that case, you located some references.)
Similarly, your statement the latest info from Honours and Awards is that neither the Golden or Diamond Jubilee medals are issued under the Australian system and are therefore considered foreign awards is also not quite correct.
But none of this helps verify with the Order of Wear ... Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CVAustRibbon.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:CVAustRibbon.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CVAustRibbon.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chevalier Legion of Honour[edit]

Re: evidence for Chevalier... well there are more Australians Awarded the Chevalier than other classes. For example there were a number of WWI Diggers awarded the Chevalier and WWII Diggers as well. The present Governor of NSW has a Chevalier as well. I know we could get ridiculous but this one seems fair. --Oliver Nouther (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just didn't have any evidence. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Service Medal[edit]

The Australian Government has announced the creation of the Operational Service Medal system which is to be similar to that of the United Kingdom, the AASM75 and ASM75 hav been discontinued as of 22 may 2012 by the Queen. A new medal ribbon will be struct for each recognition worthy operation; the first being 'operational Service Medal - Border Protection'. There will be a civil and military varient as it is not a soley military award.

WATCH THIS SPACE

regards Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 04:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Valour equal precedence to the Victoria Cross for Australia[edit]

I deleted the Cross of Valour comment that it is has ‘equal precedence to the Victoria Cross for Australia, but second in the order of wear’. This comment is unsubstantiated and is not supported by either the British or Australian Order of Wear or the British or Australian warrants or regulations for these awards. I say British or Australia since this is a British concept advocated by the VC and GC Association. The Australian Order of Wear states that both the British VC and the VCFA are equivalent but next in order of wear is the George Cross and the fourth award is the Cross of Valour. It is the only case in the Australian Order of Wear where the British award is higher than the Australian equivalent award. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Honours Order of Wearing. 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:

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

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) 22:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_honours_order_of_wearing&oldid=1205509173"