Talk:George Medal

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

This medal is named "The George Medal", not George Medal. It states on the warrant: It is ordained that the Medal shall be designated and styled "The George Medal." The Medal also bears the words, "The George Medal" Thanks, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of this Medal is "The George Medal". [1] NOT "George Medal". Also, it is not a Silver Disk, it is a Circular Silver Medal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging up the 'The' issue again - I have a copy of the Warrant in front of me and you are absolutely right. Note though that 'Silver disk' is a perfectly appropriate term, used throughout Wikipedia's coverage of orders, decorations, and medals. Fighting over this issue is fairly profitless, the current terms are a suitable vehicle to convey the necessary information.

Xdamr^talk 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for amending the article. To be perfectly frank, I'm not happy with the description Silver Disk, but I certainly won't be fighting over it. The only thing I fight, is fire. Best wishes, Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what standard are these recipients notable? This should either become a full list of recipients or be removed. If you win the GM then you have a certain notability because of the award. Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this very partial list looks odd. The

criteria for notability

include the following:

"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.....

• The person has received significant recognized awards or honors."

The question then becomes twofold: (1) is the GM a significant award or honour? and (2) Is meeting this criterion alone, in the absence of anything else notable, male a person worth an article? Personally, I'd say yes to the former (only 2,000 ever awarded) but no to the latter. So Tenzing Norgay deserves an article for obvious reasons, while it might just be argued that Andrew Pennington does not. We do not have an article on every GM winner (while we do on every VC and GC) and I don't suggest we should. But perhaps a link to the [[Category:George Medal recipients]] should go here in the article, rather than this incomplete list? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that the GM is a significant honour. Thus all recipients qualify by that statement.

I incline to the following:

• inline citations, properly cited, (see {{cite web}} as an example) to those deemed notable, and discarding form the list those who cannot be cited, whether they have their own article or not
• create the category as well (it has relevance and may co-exist peacefully with a lits)
• ensure that the medal is added to the individual articles for those people
• be unafraid of redlinks, for they encourage creation of articles

What brought me here was adding a pair of GM people to Epsom College in the alumni today and wondering whether I should, or not, include them. Does Tenzing Norgay rate as more notable for climbing a hard mountain that Gyles Mackrell for saving 200 people's lives, for example? The medal makes no distinction, and I suspect it would be invidious were we to do the same.

Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. I'm here because

The list appears to be in a random order. Can I suggest it's done alphabetically. JRPG (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there information available about procedures for it to be taken back from a disgraced recipient? It certainly happened to Terry Lewis (police officer); it appears possible this is unique, but there isn't really a basis for describing it as such. For the VC, there is a clear rule based on royal insistence that it could be worn even on the scaffold. I don't think there's anything to say the QGM was stripped from the Donald Neilson arresting officer who was later convicted, although the medal itself ended up for auction. Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bill!

Try List of revocations of appointments to orders and awarded decorations and medals of the United Kingdom though the George Medal is missing. JRPG (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of Terry Lewis having lost the GM on that page, along with several other awards, but the apparent rarity of the GM being lost could warrant further comment. There is some talk on his talk page about whether this is unlikely, on the basis bravery awards generally are not liable to forfeiture but that perhaps it would be "incongruous" to leave it. There was a case a few years ago where a lower commendation was claimed on false pretences and stripped:[2] [3]. This doesn't tell us what would happen with future unrelated disgrace, but suggests there is no absolute lock. It may be with gallantry awards being rarer than general honours the situation just hasn't come up. Billwilson5060 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. There is a discussion about Terry Lewis (police officer). However since 8 VC’s were forfeited I don’t see why HMG would regard the GM differently.

The status George V requested for the VC would appear to be unique to that, leaving the GM in an ordinary category of revocable awards. Lewis and his status are mentioned on the recipients page; it would be interesting to see if that's unique, but I don't think sources to confirm the non-existence of other cases are readily available. There is an interesting user project page here [4] that gives links on a lot of cases including Lewis and some seemingly notable ones that aren't in the main recipients page, such as rescuers in the Piper Alpha disaster. Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070531232753/http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/george_medal.htm to http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/george_medal.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.

• 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) 22:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the original text of the warrant reads "Fifthly: It is ordained that the Medal shall be awarded only for acts of great. bravery", and the 1977 changes extended this with "...and that the Medal may be awarded posthumously." it had been awarded posthumously previously. Researching a relative - a surgeon killed in enemy action in Dover in April 1942 - I discovered that he had been awarded The George Medal in August 1942. I assume that it was therefore not a prohibition, but the lack of an explicit inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.124.128 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]