Talk:Congressional Gold Medal/Archive 1
Shouldn't this be called the Congressional Gold Medal, rather than the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. Congress calls it the gold medal Ydorb
- I have seen it called both. I think the full title is Congressional Gold Medal of Honor as this is what it was called before the 20th century (see: [1]). Thats a good point for further research. Husnock 20 Sep 04
Follow to that...I tried moving it back but got an error message. it probably should just be the Congressional Gold Medal since thats what the current Congress calls it. Husnock 21 Sep 04
- I expect that they're trying to avoid confusion with the military Medal of Honor (also of course called the Congressional Medal of Honor) and that seems like a good goal for us too, so I would support a move to Congressional Gold Medal. Ddye 18:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is the metal made of actual gold?[edit]
Is the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor made of physical gold, or is that just an honorific? -- Creidieki 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it is gold plate over bronze. See 2 U.S.C. § 802(a). --68.41.122.213 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
History?[edit]
There needs to be a mention of the history of the award; such as when was it authorized and first given out. CFLeon 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I concurr LukeSurl t c 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Called The Congressional Gold Medal. There Is No "Of Honor" In The Name, Although The Medal Is Struck To Honor Someone.[edit]
Please correct the name.
The medal has always been called the "Congressional Gold Medal". The medal (example: 106th Congress, HR 3591) is referred to as the "Congressional Gold Medal" without the "Of Honor" in it. The Coast Guard example listed below was likely written by a public affairs petty officer who did a typo.
Reagan CGM: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.54:
Mandela CGM: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:4:./temp/~c1054Yc3TW::
CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6063&sequence=0
Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005 (HR 54): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-54
CRS history of Congressional Gold Medals: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30076.pdf#search=%22%22congressional%20gold%20medal%22%20Section%205111%20of%20title%2031%2C%20United%20States%20Code%22
The confusing term currently used throughout Wikipedia is wrong. It's going to need fixed throughout Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.165.196 (talk • contribs)
The unsigned comments above are correct. The addition "of Honor" is clearly wrong according to the official documents describing the medal, such as this one from the Library of Congress patsw 17:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Requested move[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Congressional Gold Medal of Honor → Congressional Gold Medal — Whatever references there are in Wikipedia and via Google with "of Honor" seem to be mistakes rather than an assertion that the correct name includes "of Honor".patsw 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Survey[edit]
- Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Survey - Support votes[edit]
- Support per above. patsw 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support per cited sources of the correct name. Also, this would lessen confusion with the military Medal of Honor and we could get rid of the long paragraph at the top. 205.157.110.11 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Survey - Oppose votes[edit]
Discussion[edit]
- Add any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Spam[edit]
someone totally just spammed on this page. 71.206.133.39 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was keep and no merge. -- Happyme22 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC) I don't think List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients should be merged with the Congressional Gold Medal. This article is about the medal itself, its history and the like. The list is a different kind of reference material... it just makes sense being on another page. ~MDD4696 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had go go out immediately after and wasn't able to yet. I understand your point, but the article is rather short and the list is not very long either. I just don't see the need for the same topic to be split across two articles. If you really oppose, I suppose you may remove the tag, but we should wait for a third opinion. Reywas92Talk 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what he means by it, but see this comment about the list. Reywas92Talk 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The "this is a joke" comment is a reference to the list quality... the person thinks that the list should include the reason each person received the medal. Anyways, I see the two articles as distinct topics. One is a detailed description of the medal, one is a quick reference list. I suppose since they are both short (at the present) they could be merged for now, but if this article gets long I think they should definitely be split. ~MDD4696 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MDD. The article is not very long, but the list is. To keep the list from dominating the article, I would keep them separate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)