Talk:David M. Gonzales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David M. Gonzales article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

An entry from David M. Gonzales appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 28, 2006.

[edit] Nice article

Your article looks like its off to a great start. -- Jreferee 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC) You may want to address this in the talk page so others don't consider the same issue: Is Gonzales' wife's name spelled Steffanie or Stephanie? --Jreferee 09:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct name variation is "Steffanie" as stated by the "Los Angeles Times" in 1949. This veriation may come from a translation of the Spanish name Estefania. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny: He never got to 22 though:/ Private David M. Gonzales (June 9, 1923–April 25, 1945), was a United States Army soldier whose heroic actions at age 22 in the He died at age 21. So something is overoptimistic here.80.57.243.174 06:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the colour photograph - if he lived during WWII, how come the photo is so bright and colourful and isn't in B&W/Sepia?

This probably needs to be updated: "will be replaced with a correct one of Gonzales after the renovations of the Pentagon — made necessary by the 9/11 attack — are completed." I'm pretty sure those renovations have been completed by now, so is the replacement photograph on display? Article quoted is from 2002. Demonstah 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Demonstah, your question is a good one. I'm not sure if the renovations have been made and the photo replaced, but I'll make an effort to find out. Cheers! Tony the Marine 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

I much prefer the black and white photo in the infobox, which was the original image, to the current colorized image. The image is much more classic and "military". (Examples below). If no one objects, I am going to change it back. — ERcheck (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

B&W from USA site

Colorized image

As creator of the article and downloader of both versions of the photo, I fully agree with ERcheck. I believe that the original image without any touch ups would be more proper. Tony the Marine 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer using the techno-color pic up top. Currently, we now have the same pic twice on the page. Plus the colorized pic adds pop to the top of the article and invites readers to continue reading. I know this is merely a style issue, but I liked it better before the change.--Evb-wiki 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As the uploader of the color images, I do like the colorized image, but comparing them side by side (see above), the black and white photo gives more honor to Gonzales and better characterizes the time he served. Pop is important in celebrity articles, and Medal of Honor recipients have celebrity. However, reverence is important in Medal of Honor articles. In addition, use of the same photo is justified by the explanation in the article.--Jreferee 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually do like the b&w pic better (and, upon second glance, it is much more dignified); however, I'm bothered by the duplication of the image on the page. Also, if the controvercy has been solved by now having the correct photo at the Pentagon, couldn't we purge the article of the incorrect photo as well?--Evb-wiki 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

For Evb-wiki, the answer is no. The reason is that the other photo is revelant to the section and it gives the reader an idea of the error commited by the Pentagon since there are still other websites that still using the wrong photo. Tony the Marine 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In memory & Awards and Recognitions

I was thinking that the two small sections "In memory" and "Awards and Recognitions" should be combined into a single more substantial sections. (Maybe simply "Awards and Recognitions.") The subject matter of the sections are rather closely related, so it might be appropriate. Tony?--Evb-wiki 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ps: You've done a good job on this article.

• Thamk you for the compliment. I would like it if both sections were seperate. The reasoning behind this is that some of us are using this as a standard in regard to military bios. Civilian honors should not be mixed up with military honors. That's my view. Tony the Marine 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)