Talk:Rene Gagnon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 300k
This article, as many of you know, is the cursed 300,000th article to be added to Wikipedia. blankfaze | •• | •• 04:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Family
Though I am not the person who is reverting the section about Gagnon's descendants, I must ask the person who keeps adding it why it seems so important. Mr. Gagnon's PUBLIC fame rests entirely on the fact that he was in a famous photograph. That he had children, grandchildren, neices and nephews, etc., is not important or relevant to his fame. It is only important to his family (which I can understand) It will only be edited out yet again by someone. Sir Rhosis 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Year of birth
After I reverted a minor act of vandalism—a user changing the year of birth from 1925 to 1919—I checked the two official links on the page, and both the Who's Who in Marine Corps History and the Arlington National Cemetery page give Gagnon's year of birth as 1926. There's another less authoritative page that does show 1925, but going with the better sources, I changed the year in the article to 1926. Does someone have better information? --ShelfSkewed talk 03:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Every book I've read shows March, 1925. Every source makes a point of noting that Franklin Sousley (born Sep. 19, 1925) was the youngest of the flagriasers. I've seen enough sources to state that it was 1925. I'm sure there's a photo of his tombstone out there. His wife was pretty damned involved in making sure exactly what got put on it--what does it say? Sir Rhosis 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hell, there's a pic of it on his page -- it says 1925. I'm gonna revert. Sir Rhosis 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Right you are. Which raises the question: Why do the Marine Corps and Arlington sites have it wrong? Oh, well—not our beat. --ShelfSkewed talk 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hell, there's a pic of it on his page -- it says 1925. I'm gonna revert. Sir Rhosis 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Attempt to capitalize on picture's fame
While I have read James Bradley's book and it is evident that Gagnon did wish to use the photo as a point to do better for himself, most of the examples listed in this article are quite lame. He appeared in a government documentary about the flag. Well, so did Hayes and Bradley. He appeared in "Sands of Iwo Jima," well, fuck, so did Hayes and Bradley. The only distinct thing listed is that he was in a Rose Bowl parade. Big deal. So far, mostly he has done publicity things that the other two fellows did, yet they aren't called on it as Gagnon is. Now, James Bradley did mention in "Flags" that Gagnon attempted to put together a lecture tour for himself in 1954. Does anyone else think we should drop the items that also involved Hayes and Bradley and just concentrate on what Gagnon himself did -- the Rose Bowl parade and the speaking tour? Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

