Talk:Audie Murphy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

FAC readiness review

I'm sorry for the delay, and am finally responding as to the FAC readiness of this article. These are some initial impressions only, and I may add more once Mike Searson has finished copyediting. The comments below are based on this version.

1. Talk-page discussion is offputting here, and unless brought under control, is likely to derail a FAC. Please try to keep talk page discussion brief, source-based, and to the point of article improvement.
2. The hatnote on the article is wrong: please review WP:LEAD. Hatnotes at the top of the article should be to dabbed articles (that is, same name). The links that are in the hatnote now belong as hatnotes within sections. There's only one Audie Murphy article, there is no dab page, there are no other articles by that or a similar name, so that hatenote should not be there.

   Removed. Links were already within appropriate sections. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

3. The mention of the Texas Medal of Honor in the lead is strange. For someone with the accomplishments of Audie Murphy, the mention of what one individual US state has done is out of place.

   Removed. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

4. The External Link farm needs to be trimmed. See WP:EL. Since Featured articles are (theoretically) comprehensive, there should be very little in the ELs, and that should be things that for practical reasons can't be covered in the article. Many of those links might find a home in other articles (for example, the films), but the list should be severely pruned.

   Trimmed down to one link, that for Commons.— Maile (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

5. I can't discern any useful reason for the TOC limit. One of the first things a good FAC reviewer will do is look at the TOC to see if the article is well organized or has too many short stubby sections, etc. Often, a TOC limit is installed pre-FAC to obscure a rambling out-of-control TOC that indicates a poorly organized article. There is nothing to hide here-- the TOC is appropriate, so why is it limited? I would suggest that the sub-heads in the "Italy" section are not needed, as a good deal of the text there appears to be off-topic to Murphy and could be trimmed, with those sections combined. This article is about Murphy, not the war, and excess detail about the war-- that doesn't enhance understanding of Murphy-- could be trimmed.

   TOC limit removed. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

6. In "Enlistment and initial training", prose in the second para is rough. As a separate reminder, please audit the article for "regardless", "however" and "subsequently" (grossly overused words on Wikipedia and almost always redundant or implied).

   Regardless, Murphy insisted on becoming a combat soldier,[18] and He subsequently completed the 13-week basic training course. In October he was given leave to visit his family.

7. In "Mediterranean Theater, North Africa", holy cow, the text gets out of control and bogged down in excess detail, relevance to Murphy is not established-- we don't need to re-visit WWII.

   Now: As part of Operation Torch on November 8, in 1942, the United States seized Port Lyautey in French Morocco. The 3rd Infantry Division was sent to this Port Lyautey on March 7, 1943, coming under the command of Major General Lucian Truscott,[21] who took them through rigorous training at Arzew in Algeria,[20] for an amphibious landing at Sicily.[22] Private Murphy participated with his division in 30 mile (48 km) 8-hour marches, known as the "Truscott Trot". For the first hour, the men marched at a pace of 5 mph (8.0 km/h), and slowed to 4 mph (6.4 km/h) for the second hour, taking the final 21 miles (34 km) at a pace of 3.5 mph (5.6 km/h). They also performed bayonet and land mine drills, obstacle course training and other exercises.[23] In Algeria, Murphy was promoted to private first class on May 7.[24] After the May 13 surrender of the Axis forces in French Tunisia,[25] the division was put in charge of the prisoners.[26] They returned to Algeria on May 15 for "Operation Copycat", training exercises in preparation for the assault landing in Sicily.[27]

   Suggest something like: After Operation Torch, the 3rd Infantry Division was sent to Algeria to train for the upcoming amphibious landing at Sicily. Private Murphy participated with his division in lengthy marches, bayonet and land mine drills, obstacle course training and other exercises. He was promoted to private first class on May 7. After the May 13, 1943 surrender of the Axis forces in French Tunisia, the division was put in charge of the prisoners. It returned to Algeria on May 15 for continued training. (Do we even need the last two sentences ?)

8. During the fighting in Sicily, Murphy became realistic about military duty, "I have seen war as it actually is, and I do not like it. But I will go on fighting."[35] This is a weird transition-- there are examples like this throughout the text indicating a prose master might be brought on board to work through the kinks. Can the wording be improved? It's an abrupt change in prose.
9. We find similar in the next section: "Mainland invasion". The first two sentences are recounting the War, while no relevance to Murphy is established. That's what wikilinks are for :) Further, in the para above we already mentioned that Mussolini was removed from power, and now we're mentioning it again. I'm not clear why it even needs mention here at all-- the article needs to focus on Murphy, not WWII.
10. I can't decipher what the sentence "Platoon soldier Swope wounded the other three who took days ... " is trying to say, or why it is in the article. I just don't know what it's saying-- the grammar is muddled.

These are only samples: the prose could be much tighter, and trimmed for excess detail. I'll stop there for now, pending a copyedit, but generally find the article to be quite interesting, and almost ready! Once the prose is much closer to FAC readiness, I'll be glad to have a look at MOS issues. The biggest problem I see for now is that the article is recounting excess detail on WWII, with direct relevance to Murphy not established. I understand we might want a timeline of where he went, when, etc, but there is too much, and the reader is bogged down in detail (dates, places, etc) that don't add to his story. I encourage folks here to work on prose improvement (there is much more that I haven't listed), stop worrying about counting medals, and hopefully be ready to approach FAC by the New Year. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the TOC limit. That and hatnotes suggested at earlier reviews. I look forward to Mike Searson and FAC-experienced editors taking this article to what it should be. Mike Searson's journalistic and American military experience are an asset here. Fingers crossed. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You will get conflicting information, particularly via different content review processes. I think a clean TOC is a good indicator of a well-organized article, and a TOC hiding an inefficient TOC almost always reveals problems. I'm not that sure that any FAC reviewers check that anymore, but I always did. Anyway, the most important thing to learn in your pre-FAC dealings is to keep answers to reviewers short because a long FAC is offputting and discourages subsequent reviewers. If something like this talk page occurs at FAC, you're doomed. Also, see above how to respond under bullet points while preserving the bullets-- that will come in handy at FAC. Good luck, I may not watch consistently, so ping me if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I just had my first glance at the sourcing, and in terms of the sourcing requirements at FA, I am very uncomfortable with this:

The Murphys were sharecroppers of Irish descent. When Josie was pregnant with Audie, she had already buried three of her children. Emmett temporarily deserted the family, leaving her to care for the remaining three children.

sourced anonymously as:

According to an anonymously user-generated page in the Winter 1998–99 newsletter of the Audie Murphy Research Foundation, family friend Audie B. Evans Sr. lived 15 miles (24 km) away and made sure the family had food and basic supplies after Emmett left. Another family friend Audie Lee West worked the Murphy garden so Josie could stay off her feet, and he assisted in the child's birth. Josie named the child Audie after both these men.[1]

Is all of that anonymously sourced? I'm not sure that sort of sourcing will get through FAC. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it myself, but wonder what others think. I haven't checked further on sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed that one. Others think what you think. It's hit and miss with the AM website as to verifying sourcing, and I've tried to catch them. Sometimes the info is available nowhere else, but that item was not essential to the article, and it's been removed. That sourcing only referred to how he got his name. Ran a quick search of the word "anon", and nothing comes up now.— Maile (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the text that is left is unsourced now. I just read over the A-class review and see you may be frustrated about the back-and-forth info you're getting. Pace yourself; aim for January :) You don't have to fix everything immediately, and you may want to hold off on some items for copyeditors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep. You read my frustrations correctly.— Maile (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed two unsourced sentences re this. Easier than finding a source, and not important to the overall picture.— Maile (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of copyediting, I did some per my standard disclaimer, and got down to Colmar Pocket. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The information about Arlington's 3rd Infantry Monument in the Death and Commemorations section could also be considered excess detail. I think it could be cut. The monument is meant to honor the entire division and does not mention Murphy specifically. The obelisk is in the same general area as Murphy's gravesite, but is quite a few rows north of it. Roam41 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the holiday season, @SandyGeorgia:, it has been a little over 6 weeks, and I'm hoping @Mike Searson: can resume his most excellent copy editing here. — Maile (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the page?

We're in the FA review process. This is not a good time to start reformatting, especially without talking first.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if Dr. Blofeld can give a response here.— Maile (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What FA review process? This article is as far away from being an FA as Earth is to Mars. Eric Corbett 00:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He means FLC for Audie Murphy honors and awards. There's no FA process going on for this main article, that I know of. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops!<blush>--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at User talk:Eric Corbett. The article needs more on film career and to trim Military career and balance it out which was why I made the initial step of splitting the full military section into another page to begin trimming it next week..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, Eric Corbett. Jim in Georgia is one of the WP Military History bunch who responded to previous requests for assistance by having this article on their watchlist as a safeguard for it. Those who watchlist this article should know that the two of you are here at my request, to help in elevating the quality of this article. A continuance of SandyGeorgia's thread above. Once that is known, I don't think anyone is going to bother you about your own changes in the process. I think most editors at WP are aware of how much the two of you have contributed to FA over the years. Thank you for your help. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  Seems like this article is just a battleground, so I don't think I can help any further. Eric Corbett 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting guidance from SandyGeorgia

SandyGeorgia as much as I appreciate what Eric Corbett and Dr. Blofeld did as far as c.e., the article from my point of view is now in a limbo state. Dr. Blofeld created Military career of Audie Murphy by copying the text from this article, with the good intention of developing that aspect of Murphy's life as a separate article. He also intended to rework the sections on this article about the military career and the filmography. Only he knows how he would have done that. Both he and Eric have now moved on and will not be contributing to it further. I have deleted the copied text from this article - at least for the time being - so nobody over-reacts about one being an unnecessary duplication of the other. As is, it leaves a bit of a void on this existing article, and I need your guidance when you can have a look. In the meantime, I hope everybody else will just leave things as they are until you have time to look at this. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Maile66; thanks for pinging me, and kudos for your continued patience and good cheer as you attempt to work up this article.

I see that Eric Corbett was doing his usual good work, and had identified the same issues I observed, when something went south here; the "something" that went south, IMO, is that discussion of plans for the article was happening on user talk pages rather than article talk, and other article page watchers had no way of knowing what was happening, so an unfortunate revert situation happened, but was quickly corrected.

Another concern is copying within Wikipedia; I've corrected that sitation by adding the Copied Template to the talk page of the Military career article.

What next? Well, copyediting still needs to happen, and hopefully Eric will be encouraged to continue on. Relative to the text copied to a sub-article:

1. Are there adequate sources which haven't been tapped for expanding on film?
2. If so, what relative weight needs to be given to Murphy's film vs military career, according to reliable sources, here in the main article? That is, is it roughly 50–50, 60–40, 80–20, etc, and how much underdeveloped content is there?
3. And, based on the answer to 1 and 2 above, next steps are:

1. Reinstate all of the deleted text that you (Maile66) deleted, to begin
2. Pruning it judiciously to reflect balance according to points 1 and 2 above (and reducing some of the extreme detail re WWII), and
3. using summary style to summarize the military career and filmography articles.

After those steps, a new copyedit might be undertaken, and I hope Eric can be enticed. I also hope a lesson was learned about using article talk pages appropriately (which has been a problem on this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Developments

Ignoring the scolding, I've made some changes which I believe have set this on its way and guess what, Sandy and I agree on something!! I think the article has a better balance now but could still be cut down a bit I think. There still looks a bit too much weight on trauma in particular, and there's still a fair bit of info in Northeastern France and Colmar which is a little superfluous and needs to be cut down. The discography section looks rather ugly to me. I'd suggest splitting it into Music career of Audie Murphy (naturally providing that you attribute yourself on the talk page ;-] ) and move the big table there. In this article I'd write a paragraph or two of decent prose to cover it. It needs a thorough copyedit and it would be good if one or two editors could go through and check for possible holes in information (as Sandy says, possible sources and missing important info for film and music in particular) and areas it can be improved. Lead now needs cutting and expanding with film career info too.

Hope this helps you on your way Maile, sorry you've also had to deal with difficulty over this, but this should have made things easier for you to continue at least. Given the current hostility from Mrs Georgia I'm not prepared to really edit this further at this stage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The alleged "scolding" on your talk page doesn't seem to have worked, as I asked you to please read WP:CWW. There is now an incorrect and unneeded talk page attribution at the top of this talk page, and no, you need not add the Copied Template when move-pastes are done correctly to begin with. Once again, Blofeld, as I requested already on your user talk page, please go read Copying Within Wikipedia; or at least please don't mislead people on this talk page into thinking that what you've done is how we copy within wikipedia. The Copied Template is the way one corrects an incorrectly done move-paste. Please fix whatever you were trying to do at the top of this talk page, because what is there now is ... nothing that makes sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, but this still makes no sense; that content was there before. Reverting to a previous version is not copying within Wikipedia. And rather than add a {{Copied}} template on yourself, when you copy text within Wikipedia, you should be attributing it in edit summary, with a clear link to the article copied from, for example: text copied from Military career of Audie Murphy. If you could please explain what you copied from where, I will try to fix this. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you could thanks LOL!! Normally I would say, readding text from Film career, but in thinking about the copy template I didn't do what I'd normally do! Sorry to be a Mr Bean over this attribution thing.. Film career section was taken from [2], cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that either. I think you may be saying that this text came from Film career of Audie Murphy. That is what I will reflect in the template; you could have just said, in edit summary, Text copied from Film career of Audie Murphy. At any rate, if that's where the text came from, it is now downgraded from what came here (the date ranges were improperly formatted, and organizing by date isn't very creative). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the Copied From template is correct now; please check. And please use correct edit summary attribution in the future, so talk pages don't have to be cluttered with these templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The important thing is that the article overall has not been downgraded, if you think it has then I doubt many would agree with you. If I've created problems with dates I'm sure you can easily fix them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish; there are problems not so easily fixed. By the way, one of the reasons you should attribute and link in edit summary is that several of the bots are smart enough to then go recover the missing bibliography items from the source article. Since you didn't, now someone has to rebuild the bibliography manually to remove the glaring red errors that are all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On my computer I spot no "glaring red errors", everything looks in place to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I have some gadget installed that you don't have that shows the missing harv refs. You brought harv refs without adding them to the bibliography. But please, leave well enough alone; I will fix it for Maile66 as soon as I have time. I feel badly enough for him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If I had whatever it is which shows up harv errors I'd have done it myself. Even now you continue to treat me as some sort of wild donkey traipsing through this article. Who the fuck are you to tell somebody to leave an article alone? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never worked before with text extensively cited to books; I've fixed it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right, I've never used a book source in any of my articles and am completely unfamiliar with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Military service

I will be going over this and making corrections as necessary, to bring it back up to WP Military History A-class condition. During the A-class review it was emphasized that the narrative needed to tell the reader why Murphy was there and what his part was in the engagement, to keep the chron flow and be consistent throughout the article. It's not so clear on that anymore. I will explain in each edit summary, but there is now a lot to be done. Please have patience with me as I do this. I do not wish to engage in any conflicts. I only want this to be accurate. Just let me do it. After I complete checking the military service section, I will go back over the filmography. Thank you.— Maile (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You still need to be very careful about the level of detail in this section, whatever the A-class review said. For instance, "In January 1943, Murphy was processed through Camp Kilmer, New Jersey." So what? That's the kind of detail that can be covered in the main article if it's considered significant, not here. Eric Corbett 15:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, Eric. I plan to go through it more than once. First I need to restore it to a condition where it makes sense to me. Right now, it's confusing to even me, and I've spent the last year researching this. So, once I get it in that condition, I'll go back through and see how I can cut it down to what you feel it should be. I'm headed the direction you want, but it will take a little time. Once I've taken it as far as I can, I'll post here. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave you to it then. Eric Corbett 15:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy to see the talk page being used :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the things I'm running into, is that Murphy's action has been eliminated in some places, possibly because it says "Company B" did such-and-such, without saying "Murphy and Company B". If Company B engaged in action, Murphy was right there unless specifically stated that he was elsewhere. It doesn't seem good writing to have to state that at each turn of events. In some cases, the prose has been changed just enough to make it a different (not necessarily accurate) scenario. And yet, other things were left in that in the end could probably be sacrificed. i.e., when I get to honing it down, I could probably eliminate the entire sentence about Eisenhower's decision to invade Italy. Perhaps it helps that by having spent so much time with this, I know where Murphy's participation is missing in the narrative. Whereas somebody not knowing the subject matter is just cutting down content. But some of these cuts are a mystery to me. This article did not get built overnight, and it will take time to get this back together and then again edited down size-wise. I'll keep plugging along. — Maile (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

But this isn't a history of Company B. Eric Corbett 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Eric, I've just restored the Jan 25th version of the military service, as of your last edit on that date. I'll start over from there editing it down. I've been spending too much time going over every sentence on what was here this morning. I may even need to go back to the sources to make sure I get it right, which means I'll have to visit libraries. So, please have patience. I know what you feel is needed here. I'll try to make it happen. But it needs time. Thank you for your patience. — Maile (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, SandyGeorgia, I'm going to concentrate on the filmography first. That one will be fairly quick for me. I can see from going through the military that it will be more time consuming to condense it and get it correct, so I'll come back to it after I take care of the filmography.— Maile (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

TOC level

Maile66, not urgent yet, but when you get to it, the most jarring thing to me now at the Table of Contents level (that is, I haven't dug deeper) is this:

4 Film career

4.1 1945–54

4.2 1955–59

4.3 1960–72

Film career of Audie Murphy is not organized that way, and IMO it is rarely good practice to segment articles by date range unless there is a reason that is obvious to casual readers. Readers here will not know why the ranges were chosen as they were, and the section headings convey no information to the reader. I'm unsure how to better head those sections, but this needs eventual fixing. The section headings should convey something meaningful about how his film career involved, whether or not that is chronological. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I wondered about those dates also - don't hold significance to me. Don't worry. This one is easier for me. The Film career article formatting is entirely mine, and I like the way it works there. I'll take care of this when I get through with the military rework.— Maile (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, SandyGeorgia, I now see I will also have to go over this with a fine tooth comb. In the very first section, I see a notable error regarding Allied Artists and its production of Bad Boy, when the text was cut to two sentences out of a paragraph on Film career of Audie Murphy. It was rewritten that Allied Artists rejected him. Allied only thought about rejecting him for the lead role, but in the end they gave it to him. I think I'll take my re-editing of both the military and the films very slowly and methodically. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The idea was to sub structure it fairly evenly. As you say, it isn't more obvious what the sections should be renamed as and by period seemed the most plausible first step. If he was at a film studio for a fairly long period and then moved to another etc I'd say splitting by that might be more advisable. Somehow I feel that my input isn't really welcome here any longer. Good luck. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett and SandyGeorgia, I have finished my copy editing of the film career section. I see no reasons for subsections. My method was to present the information in a chronological flow. But where that varies somewhat is that I grouped Murphy's works with notable directors and/or other notable collaborators into paragraphs of their own Budd Boetticher is the last paragraph, since he was involved in Murphy's final movie.— Maile (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  That works for me. My only real concern remains the balance between his military and acting career. Eric Corbett 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll work on getting the military down to size. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us updated; I'm going to refrain from nitpicking copyedit issues until you are done, and then hopefully Eric goes through, so I've nothing to add just yet :) But I do want to add, as you turn your attention to the military career sections, that you might want to keep in mind that MilHist A-class review is not the be-all end-all. It is one step in the review process, and based on limited input (I believe it only takes three editors to pass A-class?) As the article faces a broader audience at FAC, you will encounter some views that differ from MilHist views. In other words, I'm hoping that your cuts in the Military Career will be ... somewhat deeper than the MilHist review might indicate. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Better if you "nitpick" here, than for me to be embarrassed later on an FAC review. Somewhat along the lines of what Eric mentioned above "...this isn't a history of Company B" I've decided to very narrowly focus on Murphy within the military history. I understand what you are saying. One of the buggers specifically relating to the military sections has been "non-autoconfirmed experts" with an agenda on the military history, some of which are IPs on military bases. Nobody bothered me on the filmography. I expect my first go-through on downsizing the military history will require at least a secondary one by me.— Maile (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric and I will have gone through before you go to FAC, but I want to first let you finish, and next let Eric finish, so as not to detract from your work now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Military service editing

Eric Corbett and SandyGeorgia I have completed my first pass through the war-time military service to reduce it in size. I intend to do another go-through on it. If you have any comments or suggestions at this point, please mention them here before I continue.

I see an awkward placement I don't know what to do about.

• Eric, I believe you might be the one who moved "Honors and awards" out of its own section to make it a subsection of "Death and commemorations". The link in that section leads to a stand-alone list that includes both civilian and military awards/decorations/honors, received both during his military service and afterwards.
• Up at the end of the war-time military service is a subsection on "Decorations", which was originally an unsectioned part beneath his war-time service.

Both these of these are inter-related and should probably be together. I haven't decided what to do about that. Comments? — Maile (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I may not find time until Monday, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I may or may not have been the one who moved "Honours and awards out of its own section, but that hardly matters as it was at that time a work in progress undergoing rapid change, which you took over the reorganisation of. I think what we have now works fine. I also think it's best to keep the military decorations and civilian stuff such as the star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame separate anyway, as the article now does. Putting the two together seems to me to trivialise the military decorations. Eric Corbett 19:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

One possibility that might be worth considering, depending on whether or not the decorations listed in the Decorations section is complete, is to drop that link to the "main article" and instead put a regular wikilink to the Other honors section.[3] in the last paragraph of the Death and commemoration section. Eric Corbett 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What is listed in "Decorations" , except for the Medal of Honor, are all the ones that were presented to Murphy for his overall war service. The body of the military service has the ones he earned for each injury (Purple Heart) or specific actions on specific dates. The honors and awards list has them all in one place. Regardless of any previous review or process that resulted in that very long military service account, I like the scaled-down version. Some people like to read a lot of minutia, but I think this version is easier to follow.— Maile (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, do as you please. Eric Corbett 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I take that as sage advice. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I was just saying I like the way it's going so far in what we're doing.— Maile (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You've taken responsibility for the structure of the article. If I don't like it when you're done be sure I'll tell you. Until then I'll leave you to it. Eric Corbett 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Discography

The Discography section now sticks out like a sore thumb. Is anyone going to throw a hissy fit if a new discography article ("discography" isn't really the correct title anyway, but we can address that if there's general agreement that something needs to be done) is created? The material as it stands now poses more questions than answers anyway. How and when did Audie Murphy get involved in songwriting? Did he play any instrument himself? Was he self-taught? Were any of his songs used in any of his movies? Eric Corbett 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pesonally, I'm not at all keen on lists within featured articles (which I suspect is the goal here). I think we would be better off creating a separate list which we can then cross refence on this article. Cassianto^Talk 23:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've only been following this article off and on since about September 2013, and I'm unaware if that is a contentious matter, Eric. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Contentious or not, it's what needs to be done if this is ever to get within striking distance of FAC. Eric Corbett 23:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric, the short of this is that a separate discography page would be fine with me. I don't have a lot of information to give you on it, but maybe someone with more info and references can say so here. In the book No Name on the Bullet, pp 297,298, Murphy apparently got into song writing because of his friendship with his TV co-star Guy Mitchell, who was a recording artist. They collaborated with county music songwriter Scott Turner. Murphy was not a musician or a singer himself. "Shutters and Boards" was a pretty fair hit, covered by many - but that's my memory from hearing it on the radio. I'm pretty sure none of his songs were in his movies. I've seen all his movies. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess all we can do for now then is to wait and see if anyone else wants to chip in with an opinion, to avoid another outbreak of hostilities. Eric Corbett 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks really ugly. In my opinion it should be split into a Discography of Audie Murphy and replaced with a couple of decent paragraphs summarising his music career in prose. I'd have moved it myself, but I'll be damned if I'm going to move anything while Sandy is watching. Maile, can you split it and write some paragraphs on the music career in place? It should then be moved up to under film career I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• The Discography of Audie Murphy is now its own article.— Maile (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To Hell and Back the book

Eric Corbett and SandyGeorgia at some point in the last few days, the following was completely deleted from this article, except for an abbreviated version of the first sentence that was moved to the filmography. In essence, I think this got trivialized. The book was published before his film career ever got off the ground. I think it needs to be restored, as it's such a large part of his fame that it looks odd to not mention at all how this got written. The book has had so many reprints it's still in publication, and just about anybody in the US can find a fairly current edition in their local library. I think not mentioning it will trigger edit wars done the line. Comments? — Maile (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

While he was living at the club, he met writer David "Spec" McClure, who had arranged to meet him and eventually collaborated as a writer on Murphy's 1949 autobiographical book To Hell and Back.[134] McClure began to act as his unpaid agent, and got the war hero a $500 bit part in Texas, Brooklyn and Heaven.[135] By the time Murphy got a contract for the book, he had his own apartment in Hollywood, which served as the workplace for the manuscript.[136] As Murphy related his experiences, McClure took notes and wrote most of the prose. They worked with reference materials to trigger Murphy's memories. When shown a map of a given area, he would recall the battles in detail. Murphy did write a small portion himself, including some of the material on the Colmar Pocket. He directed that the book be written from the perspective of the men who fought the battles.[136] To Hell and Back has had multiple printings and been translated into Dutch,[137] Italian, [138] French,[139] and Slovene.[140]

I can see why it may have gotten deleted, because while it is important as you say, it nonetheless belabors a few points that can be left out. For example, why do we care that his own apartment in Hollywood served as the workplace for the manuscript? And he met a writer who had arranged to meet him (can be better phrased and shortened). I think it can be tightened, cut by about a third, and reinserted. Perhaps Eric has suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it could usefully be cut by about two-thirds; it's rather laboured and overly detailed. Eric Corbett 15:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this version of the article is at 4,300 words of prose, which is quite manageable relative to WP:SIZE, so we don't have an excessively large article-- it's about balance and excessive verbosity, as in the above sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Eric Corbett 15:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can just leave it as is for the time being. The book has its own article, and is listed n the navbox at the bottom of this article.— Maile (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, is there something I need to do now with the article that I missed doing? — Maile (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the next step

SandyGeorgia and Eric Corbett, what is the direction from here? I am awaiting instructions on what I need to do next. Is this yet close to FAC? Please advise, and thank you for the time you have already given me on this.— Maile (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia and Eric Corbett, still hoping to hear from you both. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong birth date

I have seen the gravestone for Audie Murphy, and he was born in 1924, not 1925. Here is a link to the picture:

https://secure.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=751

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beby.akselrad (talk • contribs) 19:0 10 May 2014

We already have a photo of his grave stone right in the article. Precisely why the article clearly states

he tried to enlist, but the Army, Navy and Marine Corps all turned him down for being underweight and underage. After his sister provided an affidavit falsifying his birth date by a year, he was accepted by the U.S. Army on 30 June 1942.

and has the footnote explaining all of this - and therefore all Army records contain the falsified birth date. The grave stone was issued by the Army. His driver's license said 1925. His family tree says 1925. There is no wrong date on the article. This is also why this page is protected. You should sign your posts, please, with four tildes. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Enlistment

Can someone cite a source that definitively states that he "enlisted" (as opposed to any other word meaning "to join") in the TNG with the rank of Captain? Otherwise, I'm going to change it back to some other word other than enlisted, as the term has a very specific meaning that is not applicable to a commissioned officer. See, e.g., his 1950 commissioning paperwork from the Audie Murphy Research Foundation which states "Oath of office, signed by Audie Murphy, commissioning him as a Captain in the Texas National Guard." Compare with his 1942 record of enlistment. Anyone have a better source than that to the contrary? Not to mention common sense -- as someone who has been both enlisted (in the National Guard as an infantryman, no less, though not in Texas) and a commissioned officer it's completely nonsensical to me to hear the phrase "enlisted" used in this way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it to say "commissioned as a Captain in the..." instead. Again, if there's a source that explains specifically that (and how) he "enlisted", as opposed to any other synonymous term for "to join"; then it would be appropriate. Nothing I've seen so far indicates that -- including his Arlington Cemetery page which says "joined" instead of enlisted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone else has a source that definitely uses the word "enlisted", I'm willing to leave it as you edited it this time. It doesn't say either "assigned" or "enlisted". The Colonel Harold Simpson book Audie Murphy, American Soldier has an entire chapter on Murphy's TNG service, and actually says "joined" in several places, including Pg. 340 (dates written as in the source): The Adjutant Texas General of Texas (per Special Orders 133, paragraph 12, dated July 14, 1950) directed Audie to report to Examination Board #14, Camp Mabry, Austin, Texas as 11:30 hours, 14 July, 1950 for examination for Federal Recognition as Captain, Infantry, Texas National Guard." The war hero-movie actor was given the VIP treatment when he arrived at Austin on the morning of July 14 to join the Texas National Guard and the 36th Infantry Division. The next page details his physical examination, the military bigwigs at the luncheon, and the press interview. Simpson does not use either "assigned" or "enlisted". And if you have questions about the author's credentials in regards to military knowledge, here's Harold Brown Simpson link. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, assigned was just poor wording on my part the first time. I've spent a couple hours looking up sources online and have yet to find a source for anyone who has "enlisted as a captain" since the 1860's (when the term literally meant to be on the lists of a particular regiment). And no, I don't have any specific doubts that I'm aware of regarding Simpson; I just don't have a copy and the cheapest one I could find was $50. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I don't have a copy of Simpson's book, either. Same reason - too expensive. I found a lone copy that was locked up with antiquated tomes at a library. So, they let me photocopy ($$$$) pertinent pages, and then they locked it back up. Fortunately, I still have those photocopies. When it comes to Murphy's military career, Simpson's book is by far better than any others. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted murder

Murphy being accused of attempted murder is certainly significant enough to be present in the text. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Dustin (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustin V. S., the editor is talking about a 1970 incident, an argument with a dog trainer. Murphy was arrested and acquitted when it went to court. It was originally in this article, and deleted by some subsequent review process. It was deemed as a small incident in the over all scope of this article and not necessary. He owned guns, and that's no secret. If we put in every incident where Murphy got into an argument and pulled a gun on somebody, it would be an article about trivia.— Maile (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for explaining. Dustin (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

An accusation is a small potato. Convictions, on the other hand, are big potatoes. Bill Cosby, by comparison, has been accused by over twenty people, and has settled at least one case out of court. Rklawton (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I’ve always thought some mention of this incident should be put back in the article. It wasn’t just an accusation or small thing. Murphy was actually arrested and put on trial. The dog trainer was most certainly exaggerating the story and Murphy was eventually completely exonerated, but the whole trial was blown up into a huge media event at the time. More significantly, it was the one and only time he was ever arrested and charged with anything at all and these were pretty serious charges. Unfortunately, this all happened at the worst possible time, when he was struggling financially. The trial was the source of a very funny quote Murphy gave to the press concerning the accusation and his personal ability as a marksman. “I think that it is injurious to my reputation to think that I could fire a shot at a target as big as Mr. Gofstein and miss.” Some of the press attacked him for making light of the situation, but he certainly had a point there. I don't think a detailed retelling of the whole event needs to be in the article, but a small mention and the important fact that he was acquitted should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roam41 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Forgot to sign, sorry! Roam41 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal life/personality

It struck me while reading this that for such a larger-than-life figure, the article doesn't really go into much detail on Murphy's personality. How did his comrades in arms remember him? How did he react to all his fame and glory? How did he feel about reenacting his wartime exploits for film? What did other Hollywood types think of him? Most biography articles on Wikipedia have a section like this, but the equivalent on this article is pretty skimpy.

What's more, while looking at the Amazon page for No Name on the Bullet, a biography heavily cited by this article, I read that "just beneath the surface of his life lay a numbness, a delayed stress relieved only by bouts of womanizing, nocturnal adventures, reckless gambling, and dangerous practical jokes. Murphy would survive into the Vietnam era as an anachronism of sorts, whose baroque schemes for financial salvation plunged him into the American political and criminal netherworld - a hero badly out of time." The article only hints at all of this. Now maybe the author is biased, but if it's a major biography these details should at least be mentioned - including the attempted murder mentioned above. (And Dissident wasn't asking to include "every incident where Murphy got into an argument and pulled a gun on somebody!") Brutannica (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Date format (again)

There must be a fundamental misunderstanding of this thing with the "military dates", which applies to "modern U.S. military". So Murphy's a "modern U.S. military"?

This rule applies to U.S. military organizations, battles, history, ships, aircraft, equipment, decorations, etc, but of course it does not apply to people. Millions of Americans have some sort of connection to the military. Some have been officers, some have just been recruits. Many have gained notability and have an article here. Should the fact that there is some sort of connection to the military, if ever so slight, override the standard mdy date format? Of course not. I think this single statement in the guidelines is widely over-interpreted.

In contrast, Dwight D. Eisenhower does not appear to be a "modern U.S. military", despite the fact that he's one of very few five-star generals in the US Army, and despite that his military career is what made him notable, and made it possible for him to become president.

To me it's pretty obvious that the guideline does not apply to people.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was under the same impression and was also basing the date format change on Dwight D. Eisenhower, Charles Pelot Summerall, and Robert E. Lee it seems like this person had a well established notable life outside of the military, so I wasn't sure where the line is drawn. It does seem though that MM/DD/YYYY is more widely used, perhaps clarification is needed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, read threads above. And this was hammered out on the WP Military History, in various reviews and their talk page. I can't tell you how tired I am of this. You can't have two styles in an article. This is what the reviewers and others at the Military History project decided it should be. You are more than welcome to go over to their talk page and post all about it. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, just want to make sure there is a single format, sorry about the confusion I hope it was understandable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you where the line is drawn. "Modern US military" does apply to people, and by "modern", the 20th and 21st centuries are meant per WP:STRONGNAT. Any attempt to change the format of any article without strong consensus violates WP:DATERET and will result in a trip to WP:ANI. ArbCom held in the Infoxes case that gnomes can be blocked or banned for attempting to override the article creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at Wesley Clark and John McCain. They were born in 1944 and 1936 respectively. Are they politicians or are they military persons? Are they "modern"? Well, their articles are in the mdy format, and rightly so in my opinion.

Maile, consider this: if your interpretation is correct, howcome you end up in so many discussions that "[you] can't tell [us] how tied [you are] of this"? Does this possibly indicate that your interpretation is wrong? Just think about it. I mean, we have a host of articles with the dmy format, and a host of articles with the mdy format (such as those on Clark and McCain). Is this fortunate? Most of the former articles (hopefully) have some kind of military connection, but so do many articles of the latter category.

You don't say about people that they're "modern". Are you "modern", Maile?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "modern" here refers to modern history. It's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WT:MOSDATE#Military date format in biographical articles. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Medal of Honor citation

I spotted the article of the frontpage -- nice spot : ) -- and it struck me as a little odd that this heavily-decorated man's page did not carry his Medal of Honor citation (arguably the one carrying the most... 'weight'). Does that have a specific reason (it is not displayed on his separate "Decoration" page either, I checked). Would there be opposition to including something like this:

Medal of Honor citation [obviously as a heading]

The President of the United States of America, pursuant to acts of Congress approved March 3, 1863 and July 9, 1918, has awarded in the name of Congress to

Second Lieutenant Audie L. Murphy, United States Army THE MEDAL OF HONOR for conspicuous acts of gallantry and intrepidity involving risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action with enemy near Holtzwhihr, France, on 26 January 1945.

Given under my hand in the city of Washington this 23rd day of April 1945.

CITATION

2nd Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. Lieutenant Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to a prepared position in a woods while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him to his right one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. It's crew withdrew to the woods. Lieutenant Murphy continued to direct artillery fire which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, Lieutenant Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer which was in danger of blowing up any instant and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to the German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. the enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminated Lieutenant Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad which was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound but ignored it and continued the single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he personally killed or wounded about 50. Lieutenant Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.

? (I know it needs some tender loving formatting, but that's not the point.)

I found both the body text and the digitized document: [4] [5]

Looking forward to your opinions. Constructive, please.Mfhulskemper (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. The citation was originally in this article, and eliminated at some point when getting this article ready for Featured Article status (that which makes it good enough to be on the front page). I'm not the one who removed it, but there were several of Wiikipedia's top editors involved in this process, and well over a thousand edits to elevate the quality. There were also numerous project reviews at various steps. At this point, I can't even remember why the citation was removed, except that the citation pretty much repeats what we already have in the article. With Feature Articles, balance is a key element. That is, there needs to be as much on his film career as his military career, that type of thing. When the FA cropping process began, this article was about 90% information on his military career. That's about as much as I can tell you. Perhaps one of those who were actually involved in the FA process on this article might post here. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is good (enough) info to have! This makes an understandable reason for not having it in here. I might take it over to his decorations page, then, since that is bound to be a little unbalanced anyway (him being the most decorated veteran ever, hehe). Cheers!Mfhulskemper (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The citation is already at List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_World_War_II#M.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best it's on the List of MoH recipients. I would discourage putting the full citation on Audie Murphy honors and awards, due to the sheer size of the text. That article is a Featured List, and was also vetted the same as this main article. A big blob of text dropped into a Featured List could lose its Featured List status. If it loses its Featured List status, then the entire Audie Murphy series loses its Featured Topic status. It's a fine line we dance to keep within all the structure to maintain this as a Featured Topic. By the way, his honors and awards page is NOT unbalanced. We went through everything available. It's a full count as is.— Maile (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Purple Heart

Purple Heart's are not bravery awards. They are simply (and uniquely to the USA) given for injuries - even accidental ones. On a similar theme, Murphy did not receive Presidential Unit Citations, his unit did.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Infobox lists awards that Murphy was officially allowed to wear on his uniform. The Presidential Unit Citations permitted him to wear the ribbon and OLC. The Purple Heart always corresponds to an official wearable medal or ribbon. Roam41 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the Purple Heart is NOT awarded for accidental injuries, the death, wound, or injury must be directly or indirectly related to causes initiated by an enemy. CobraDragoon (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Icons in infobox

This article achieved Featured Article status with icons of Murphy's medals. There is no better way to give an immediate view to the reader the extent of his awards. Removing them also removes the visual representation. This is the most decorated soldier in American history, and there is no better way to show that. Scr★pIron^IV 03:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Audie Murphy. 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/20070312030846/http://www.wwiiadt.com/Airborne_history/Dragoon.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/sfrance/sfrance.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131017045050/http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r600_8_22.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r600_8_22.pdf

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) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

This " and was interred with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery." Should be "and was interred with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery." in cemetery instead of at cemetery.

93.117.66.62 (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - Buried "at" is consistent with the Infobox military person template. See also Douglas MacArthur, George S. Patton, Robert E. Lee, John J. Pershing. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Democrat

Closing discussion initiated by banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there no mention of the fact that Murphy was a lifelong supporter of the US Democratic Party? (CoryHilton (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) Why should it be mentioned? If you have some verifiable information that he was politically active in some noteworthy manner (e.g., large financial donor, sponsored or spoke at campaign fund raisers, or ran for office as a Democrat candidate), then perhaps it would be appropriate, but, to paraphrase another Democrat, what difference does it possibly make that he was a "supporter" of the Democrat Party? CobraDragoon (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Murphy donated a lot of money to the Democratic Party and campaigned for Truman and Johnson. (CoryHilton (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) Sources? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC) "The Price of Valor: The Life of Audie Murphy" says he was a Southern Democrat who was asked to run for Congress in 1948. (CoryHilton (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)) Well then add it in the personal life section, which I think is the only place that fits. I don't think it deserves more than a sentence. Be sure to include the page number. Thanks for asking. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC) I've done a lot of research on Murphy, and nobody else mentions this at all. Kind of odd, isn't it? What is mentioned, is that early in his Hollywood years when he was still living with Jimmy Cagney, he got involved with a bunch of liberal-leaning film industry groups in the late 1940s, if that's what you are referring to. Hollywood Fights Back was produced as two 30-minute radio specials by the First Amendment Committee in 1947 for broadcast 26 October and 2 November on the ABC radio network. Numerous major film stars of the era appeared in the specials to express their opposition to the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee. That does not make him a lifelong anything. He later said they were just using him, and he lost interest. That has been covered as much as it needs to be in Film career of Audie Murphy. Other than that, I've been through some extensive research on him, and nobody offered the opinion that he had allegiance to either party. The Price of Valor is printed by Regnery Publishing, and it's worth it to read the Wikipedia article on the publisher. Before we believe that claim, we would need to know where the author got it from, so it can be double checked. If no other authors on Audie Murphy have mentioned this, it seems odd. This is a Featured Article, and we need to respect that means this information needs to be double checked. — Maile (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Just to add, because the year 1948 is mentioned as "he was a Southern Democrat who was asked to run for Congress in 1948." What is documented, is that in 1948 he was a California resident. He was out of work, sleeping on the floor of the Terry Hunt's Athletic Club, and trying to survive on an Army pension of $113 a month. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC) This thread was started by the banned editor HarveyCarter, presumably for his usual trolling purposes. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC) This is why I tend not to AGF. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Nick-D. I had begun to suspect that myself, looking at his edits to other articles. I just had not quite made the connection to the sockpuppet master. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Ribbon

In his military decorations page, Murphy's Campaign ribbon seems to look jumbled with campaign stars because of lack of additional space. This is due to an an additional star, which makes it 10. Murphy served only nine campaigns and an arrowhead device for the assault in Sicily. The newspaper clipping of his awards has an error in campaign ribbon.

Arrowhead device + European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal + 1 Silver Campaign Star + 3 Bronze Campaign Stars = 9 Campaigns (inc.Arrowhead device)

Here are some sites, how it should have looked:- 1· http://www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.php?recordID=170 2. http://army.togetherweserved.com/army/servlet/tws.webapp.WebApps?cmd=ShadowBoxProfile&type=Person&ID=5937

User:Books Nash (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The newspaper clipping from the Toledo Blade is correct. The reporter received the list directly from the Department of the Army. This list can also be confirmed with the Smithsonian and Murphy’s own military file. Murphy served in 9 campaigns plus 2 amphibious landings (designated by a single arrowhead). This is indicated on his ribbon by 9 separate stars and 1 arrowhead, making a total of 10 devices. You are confused because you are making the assumption that an arrowhead and a campaign star are somehow interchangeable. The Arrowhead device is an additional award representing a short specific time period during a campaign. A soldier is only entitled to an arrowhead if he participated during that time frame. The two sources you have mentioned above are not reliable references, especially by Wikipedia standards. They are unofficial sites and though they are well meaning, both often contain errors. I suggest you confirm any information from these sites with other more official sources, if possible. I have noticed that quite often these tribute sites take their medal information directly from unsourced Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this just reinforces the errors. Many references do list Murphy’s campaigns as 7 or 8, but this was corrected in the 1970s after a review was done by the Army. An updated list was then placed in his official file.

For the record, the campaigns are as follows: Tunisia, Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Southern France, Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace, Central Europe. The arrowhead represents landings at Licata and Southern France. Roam41 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audie Murphy. 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/20140416205834/http://www.usar.army.mil/ourstory/History/Documents/Concise%20History%20Brochure_FA_revised%20April%202013_web%20version.pdf to http://www.usar.army.mil/ourstory/History/Documents/Concise%20History%20Brochure_FA_revised%20April%202013_web%20version.pdf

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. 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) 04:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audie Murphy. 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/20131004234717/http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=209 to http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=209

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. 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) 23:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Politics

Should the article mention that Murphy was a Democrat? (86.144.250.234 (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC))

Inappropriate. He was not an elected official, and his career was not otherwise tied to political activism. He was a soldier whose allegiance was to the country as a whole. — Maile (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous year of birth

In the brief bio section on the right-hand side of the page it shows Audie's year of birth as 1925, but farther on down in the photo of Audie's gravestone in Arlington cemetery it shows his year of birth as 1924.

Marco Sanguinetti (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Marco Sanguinetti

Please see Footnote #1 for a full explanation. He lied about his birthdate to get into the Army, so the military records show the fake birth date of 1924. His California's drivers license showed his real birth date of 1925.— Maile (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marco Sanguinetti: This has also been discussed before. You can search the talk page archives for answers like these. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To chime in, the 1930 US census reports his age as 6: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:C9SM-83Z

Emmitt Murphy Head M 41 Texas Josie Murphy Wife F 38 Texas Corine Murphy Daughter F 19 Texas Charlie Murphy Son M 17 Texas June Murphy Daughter F 11 Texas Audie Murphy Son M 6 Texas Richard Murphy Son M 4 Texas Eugene Murphy Son M 1 Texas

Maybe 1924 is correct after all? 2602:306:8381:7390:A3:E174:EA50:2F7D (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@2602:306:8381:7390:A3:E174:EA50:2F7D Could be 1924. Could even be 1923 as his birthday was June 20, and the census was on April 11; it all depends on whether the census enumerator was a stickler for details (many seem to have been but misinformation and mistakes still occurred) and who gave him the ages in question. If it was one of the many siblings the age (6) could simply have been a mistake or an approximation. This source supports 1925 as the correct year of birth and has reasonably reliable sources. Too bad there is no birth certificate, which is a little surprising as by the 1920s they were required in Texas, but in a rural area like where Audie Murphy was born I guess, and his family's socioeconomic status and remote homestead they may not have felt it necessary or bothered to get one registered, apparently for any of the kids. 65.88.88.45 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017

2602:30A:C0C1:B570:842A:ABE:E7A5:BA42 (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC) 1924 he was born

We are not changing his date of birth. Please see Archive_1#Year_of_birth. DOB is the most argued issue of Audie Murphy. The last time he entered his date of birth was on his California Driver's License, which showed 1925. In order to be issued his first California driver's license, he had to have showed identification with his birth date to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The article is protected specifically because of the previous constant edit wars over his birth date. It stays as is. — Maile (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Soldier's Medal and Air Medals awarded to 3rd Infantry Div.

Please see ANI/Incidents

Whether you believe it or not (foolish), you can see for yourselves that the 3rd Infantry Division was awarded 172 Soldier Medals (SM) and 72 Air Medals (AM) in WWII.http://www.lonesentry.com/usdivisions/history/infantry/division/3rd_infantry_division.html Some puffed up editor and trouble maker-Mailee is calling my recent imprements to the article which are only edits in good faith, "disruptive editing", what do you all call his? YahwehSaves (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC) YahwehSaves, that's not much improvement (regarding the language directed at another editor), and Maile66 is an administrator and highly respected editor, I wouldn't start this conversation with the personal attacks you make. Your edits are drastic changes to an article that has been deemed a Featured Article, which indicates quality far superior to the average article. Rather than make all these drastic changes all at once, how about you take the one change you feel is most important, and invite discussion about it, then once community consensus is determined, move to some of the other changes you'd like to see to the article? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC) I've experienced this editor before and unfortunately, he's not the kind of person Wikipedia should have as an administrator. The military veterans who are editors and administrators can check this post and my recent edits here regarding Murphy (and elsewhere) vs his and see for themselves. Its not drastic. YahwehSaves (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC) I am sorry but while I can agree that the edits were likely in good faith, they did not improve the quality of this Featured Article. Additionally, one does not have to be a vet to edit a military article. The statements about the Solider's Medals and Air Medals would best be worked into an appropriate section on the 3ID page and not into an article about a single member of that unit who was not awarded either of those medals. EricSerge (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC) My edits were improvements to the quality of the article including my corrections to what the editor above had placed in the so called "Decorations" section which does include a reference to and his comments to the readers about Murphy not being awarded the Soldier's Medal which says combat soldiers areas are not eligible for this award which is false and misleading. I think an editor in good faith would go over each of my recent changes in the article and allow what's applicable. That's exactly what I believe Mailee66 and others like him do not want to be seen. Instead as anyone one can see (example-puffed up MOH photo in article) and read (example-all Murphy's medals are considered to be "decorations" when actually some are not), there are several things that needed and need to be changed. My edits being called "disruptive" and being deleted is troubling. YahwehSaves (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC) @YahwehSaves: I've worked with Maile66 on Talk:Film career of Audie Murphy/GA1 and that interaction was overwhelmingly positive. Every interaction I've had with you has been far less so. More importantly, I am offended that you think your editing improves a featured article. Maile66 worked tirelessly on this entire topic and his work does not require your "improvement." Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 78.26, why don't you say something about Troutman's "personal attacks" and "language"? Unfortunately, he's not a good editor either. YahwehSaves (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Disagreeing with you does not constitute a personal attack.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Because Troutman addresses actions, not the person, while your address to Maile66 did the opposite. I would not have labeled your edits "disruptive" but I concur they did not improve the quality of the article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 78.26 Interesting, these were not disruptive edits including corrections and Mailee66 deleted everything and blocked me from editing Murphy saying I was disruptive as an excuse. Look at all his edits dominating the site. I made legitimate changes-corrections like his Soldier's Medal comment, yet these corrections are not improvements/quality improvements? This seems personal to me and was not said in good faith. I'd like to see every edit I made edited and reason each should be deleted. I placed sections in order ... and these changes are not an improvement? All one has to do is view the article before it all the changes was deleted and compare it present. YahwehSaves (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC) YahwehSaves (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I think the point here is that you don't have consensus for your edits. If we, the community, don't think your changes improve the article we can revert. Your edits don't have a right to exist and we don't have to justify it. If you don't like it, please take it to a drama board and tell them you're being treated unfairly. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC) The Soldier's Medal is also awarded to combat soldiers. YahwehSaves (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I agree with Chris that YahwehSaves doesn't have consensus for his edits. WP operates on consensus. I strongly suggest YahwehSaves calmly raises the issues he has, one at a time, here on the talk page, and seeks consensus. Also, there is no deadline. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I remember YahwehSaves from years ago... he was a pain in the butt, with his circular arguments, repeatedely undoing the efforts of Maile66 to advance the article to FA, revising the article with bombardments of "little tweaks" that individually appeared to do nothing harmful but combined they nudged the article back towards his agenda-motivated revisions that has been disputed. His edits on the article lasted over 3 years, 2011–2013, and he always had a high self-opinion of himself and his edits, irritatingly labelling them as "necessary", "beneficial", "corrections" or "important", when in fact many were combatitive, petty or lacking reliable sources. As I recall, it became disruptive and earned him a short block or two, complaints via the MILHIST board mounted and were raised to ANI, with requests for blocks and topic bans. In short, if this editor isn't kept on a tight leash he starts a long and tiresome downward spiral, in a WP:CIVPUSH fashion that becomes bothersome and hard for admins to react to. I recall working well with Maile66 to get the article to A or GA, something like that, but not FA – he'll have to rememeber, my memory isn't that specific. However, I do think admins or MILHIST coords should keep a watch on this article and be more reactive in pulling the choke chain this time, since the article is now an FA, I don't see the need for any editor to come along and unravel everything or disrupt the content or context that has been fully researched by Maile66 and other editors who took it through the tough FA review process. It's almost as if he was biding his time, since the edits in 2017 are so similar to those rejected years ago... As can be seen in his defense above, he's already playing the "taking this personally" card, "these are quality improvements", "my edits are legitimate" and "Maile66 is admin abusing me" rhetoric. Editors should read between the lines and see that virtually everything he does or says is a form of WP:POVPUSH, since his edits can't really be justified as being genuine improvements. I can't help but wonder if there's not some game being played here... if he continues using the same irritating stunts he pulled before I think his self-indulgent behaviour will rapidly boomerang on him. Note that no personal attacks are intended from me here, just summarising my earlier experiences with the editor and warning that it looks set to be repeated, the pattern is clear. Maile66 is certainly not a "puffed up editor" but I'd say that YahwehSaves certainly is. — Marcus(talk) 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

wordsmithing

To editor Anthony22: Generally speaking, Featured Articles don't need correction. Most of the changes you made were not productive. The article is written very well and your effort to tweak sentences to your liking evinces problematic thinking, in my opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not rewrite the article

The howling cow I appreciate the fact that you want to edit this article for what you believe to be accuracy, or whatever. Or maybe you just like your words and phrasing more than the existing text. But you appear to be slowly rewriting more than one article related to Audie Murphy. It is not necessary. You may notice you keep getting reverted. Do not rewrite sourced notes sections, as you did on Military career of Audie Murphy please. I can't imagine why you would want to change a footnote to what you want it to say, not how it was approved in a review. The main article went through intense scrutiny and fine tuning at FAC, by members of the Military History project. The military career article went through GA, also by a member of the Military History project. Certainly, please do not make changes to sourced notes sections. If you think that much needs to be changed, then start a section here on the talk page and get consensus. — Maile (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Audie Murphy's official date of enlistment

I believe that there is actually no discrepancy regarding the date when Audie Murphy enlisted into the United States Army. The enlistment packet within Audie Murphy's service records contains;

1. The affidavit signed by Corinne Burns falsifying Audie's true age and giving him consent to join the United States Army, notarized on 26 June 1942

2. The "Enlistment Record, Army of the United States" and the "Declaration of Applicant," the bottom portion being dated 29 June 1942 and the top portion being dated 30 June 1942

3. The "Physical Examination," dated 30 June 1942

4. The "Oath and Certificate of Enlistment" and the "Nearest Relative and Person to be Notified in Case of Emergency," dated 30 June 1942

Audie would have first met with Technician 4th Grade Roy A. Gann at the recruiting office (the Greenville post office) on 29 June 1942. There, he would have truthfully filled out the "Declaration of Applicant" (the bottom two-thirds of the "Enlistment Record, Army of the United States") to make it known that he intended to enlist in the Army of the United States.

Audie, along with any other prospective soldiers from the Greenville area, would have then been forwarded the next day to Dallas, Texas; the induction station, as noted by Simpson in his biography, was in the Federal building there. There, he was medically examined to determine his suitability for service, given the Soldier's Oath (this is the actual point at which he was officially enlisted in the Army of the United States), given his Army Serial Number (18083707), and designated persons to be notified in case of emergency (Corrine Burns) as well as beneficiaries (primary: Corinne Burns; secondary; Nadine Burns). During the process, Major B.H. Davis would have filled out the top one-third of the "Enlistment Record, Army of the United States," as well as the sheet reading "Oath and Certificate of Enlistment."

Consulting the evidence on the enlistment record, I believe the NRHP citation stating June 20, 1942 as a date of enlistment is thus incorrect.

The howling cow (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Roam41 and Chris troutman: I think it would be beneficial if you could weigh in on this. The footnote in question is #2, and it's sourced. If The howling cow is correct, we should make a change. I wrote the footnote in question ... but ... 3-4 years later and my ensuing thousands of edits on a lot of subject matters, I could use some input. You might recall the ocean of talk page discussions, review, etc. on everything. I was going back through the old talk pages, and everything is mixed in with other issues that were happening. It's just a big glut of information . — Maile (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Although there can be no dispute about the actual date Murphy was officially inducted into the Army (June 30), there have been different claims associated with the preceding few days. Actually all of the dates may be true to some extent depending on how you look at it. According to most sources, he tried to join on his 18th birthday, June 20. At the very least, he was required by law to register for the Selective Service on that day, so the Post Office may have a point. He most likely was told to bring in additional paperwork to verify his age. Perhaps he filled out some type of form that day. Perhaps he was told to return specifically on the 29th. We don’t know for sure. He obviously had been in to inquire prior to June 29 if only to obtain a blank C.A.R.O. form for Corinne to sign. He did start the formal enlistment process on the 29th in Greenville and was officially inducted in Dallas on the 30th. Col. Simpson, who was working directly with Corinne, was also unsure of the dates as he states on page 45 So, if Corinne wasn’t able to confirm the exact sequence for the book, then I don’t understand how we can. The previous deletion of footnotes and sources, based on personal opinion did nothing to enhance the article, in my view. The point is there are several claims and the article is trying to present them in a balanced neutral way. Seems fair to me. Roam41 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Or, he tried to enlist on his 17th birthday, if we are sticking to the 1925 year of birth (the date he used on his Calif driver's license, that required proof at the Calif DMV). But I get the point, and I'm glad I asked. It's starting to come back to me now, how so much about putting this article together came via a lot of discussion and examining a lot of conflicting sourcing. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Howling cow is pushing original research. I don't care about any of it. Let me know when you publish an article in an academic journal laying out your hypothesis and we can then argue if you're allowed to cite yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think Howling cow is just reading the sourcing attached to the footnote. We linked the Audie Murphy website, but that PDF is their scan of his military records. We didn't do the OR, the Audie Murphy site did, but that's what Howling cow is referring to. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well then I need to hear a clearer case of which source is right if the NRHP source is wrong. It sounds like OR if you're trying to reason out what the historical fact is. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. I get what you're saying. I don't think we have a clear case of which source is correct. We just don't know. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It must be noted that what we are talking about here is a large edit to a footnote The date in the main article is not in dispute and corresponds to Murphy’s army records. The footnote was added to show that there were other claims for the enlistment date, which is true. When The Howling Cow deleted sources and re-wrote that information, the entire point of the footnote was lost. Roam41 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The is also a good place to comment that Audie Murphy is just one of those cultural icons that individuals believe that they, and only they, have the definitive correct information on any given aspect of his life. And yet, there is a lot of ambiguity about his life and careers, some of which was because Murphy himself provided whatever worked for him in a given situation. Some of that is due to inconsistencies of record keeping in the place and time he came from. Family records were often oral rather than written. And some of it is because of human error, or gaps in known records. That particular footnote is there to tell the reader we know inconsistencies exist, here are the sources, the reader can make up their own mind. — Maile (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Roam41 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2018

Audie Murphy was rejected from the Air Force and the Marines, not the Navy and the Marines Student0321 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dolotta (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The text on Audie Murphy doesn't jibe with the one in the 2 pictures in the article

Hi there,

The date of birth in the text (year 1925) doesn't jibe with the one in the 2 pictures in the article (year 1924) showing the grave and memorial, hence the correction by me because one doesn't tally with the other. The year in the pictures is different from the one in the text. Thought you'd be grateful.

Kind regards, Rob

RobVeggett (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

We already know, and it's duly noted in the article that Murphy lied about his age to enlist (said it was 1924), later changed his age again for his driver's license (which he said was 1925), and there are conflicting government records, and conflicting media information. He vacillated back and forth on his age through the years. The family says his birth date was 1925, but the government stuck with the info he gave when enlisting. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1924 as possible or likely year of birth

The following reliable sources indicate Murphy was born in 1924:

• Audie L. Murphy (aged 6) in the 1930 United States Federal Census], enumerated April 11, 1930.

• Audie L. Murphy, U.S. Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014]

• Audie Leon Murphy, Virginia Death Records, 1912-2014

• Audie L. Murphy, Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2017

• Audie Leon Murphy: U.S. Veterans' Gravesites, ca. 1775-2006
  :: @Maile66 : Well, Murphy may have lied to make himself old enough to enlist but why would his family have given his age as 6 on April 11, 1930 to a census enumerator for the 1930 census? No one had any reason at that point to make the child a year older. I guarantee no one in the Murphy family thought another world war would arrive in a dozen years. Quis separabit? 18:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Exact Quis separatis?. Me too I just made a research on FamilySearch on him and I found the 1930 US Census listing him as 6 years old, here on FamilySearch for those that don't have a subscription on ancestry (you must register on FamilySearch too but it's free) -> [6]. He was born in 1924, and to prove that better, on the 1930 US Census he has a younger brother named Richard who is listed at 4 years and 2 months old. By research I found that Richard was born on February 26, 1926 -> [7]. If Audie was born on June 20, 1925 it implies that the difference of age between him and his brother is about 8 months. Possible but improbable. I think that Audie has not lied about his age and was born in 1924 in the beginning but for Hollywood as an actor he cut a year like a lot of actors and actresses did to look younger. In fact probably his sister Corinne told he falsified his birth certificate for the army to cover him for his actor role. He didn't falsified his birth act from 1925 to 1924 for the army, but he falsified it from 1924 to 1925 for Hollywood. It's why you see 1925 on his driver's license. --Danielvis08 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• None of these are the secondary reliable sources Wikipedia relies on. It's classic WP:OR. EEng 17:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as a passing comment here to this. We know at some point he went back to saying he was born in 1925, because it was on his California driver's license that was recovered at the scene of the plane crash. And we know his first time to California was 1945 when actor James Cagney invited him out. Even in those days, to get a driver's license, you had to prove to any given state's department of motor vehicles that you were who you said you were, and proof of your date of birth. So, he either had a previous driver's license that said 1925, or he provided other proof of his DOB. Either way, he proved to the satisfaction of the California DMV that he was born in 1925. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

1925 as likely year of birth

This appears to be an extremely logical analysis and its conclusion makes sense logically (see highlighted text):

• "Audie Murphy's date of birth is in dispute. He wanted to join the military during WWII but he was too young. He and his oldest sister, Elizabeth Corine Murphy Burns, somehow conspired to change his date of birth in order to adjust his age so he could join. We don't know whether he was born in 1924, 1925 or 1926 except by extrapolation. The U.S. Army records show him as being born 6/20/1924 but he and his sister later said they had made that up so he could join the military. He continued to use that date in his autobiography, To "Hell And Back". Since this was written after his army stint, no one knows why he kept up the subterfuge unless it was so he wouldn't lose military benefits. He had a brother, Richard "Dick" Houston Murphy, was born 2/20/1926 (as proved by his birth record) so Audie couldn't have been born in 1926. If he was actually born in 1924, he would have been old enough and there wouldn't have been a reason to lie. But they both said they lied. So if he wasn't born in 1924 and he wasn't born in 1926, that leaves 1925. But there is quite a debate about it". (http://sharonscrapbook.blogspot.com/2012/09/audie-leon-murphy.html) 2604:2000:EFC0:108:494E:3A5B:2244:F1E5 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

Audie Murphy was born on June 20, 1924, not June 20, 1925. 198.38.10.216 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

See Audie_Murphy#cite_note-birth-7 – Thjarkur (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

The picture of headstone shows born 1924. Not 1925. 2601:CA:8102:2B50:4592:7CC4:6C8F:B639 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Preumably you want to change his year of birth somewhere. Did you read the rather extensive footnote by that in the infobox? I'd bet there's even more in the article if you take a look. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Request edit be made to change:

"He was one of Americas most decorated combat soldiers of WWII. "

To read as follows:

"He was Americas most decorated combat soldier of WWII." 174.254.192.137 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That claim was made when he returned from the war in 1945, see Film career section. Also see Military career of Audie Murphy#Homecoming and discharge. Everybody - including the US Army - believed that at the time, and gave him the accolades as such. Record keeping was not as tidy it should have been right after the war. Since that time, families of WWII veterans have worked with the military for the awarding of medals that slipped through the cracks immediately following the war. Most notable is Garlin Murl Conner. Nobody can really define who was the most decorated, so we leave it at, "one of the most decorated". — Maile (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sabaton Song

I found this page through a song by metal band Sabaton. They wrote a song called "To Hell and Back" about the life of Audie Murphy. There's more info about the meaning behind the lyrics on the band's website here: https://www.sabaton.net/discography/heroes/to-hell-and-back/ I think it would be worth including in this article, but I'm not sure. This post is also my first-ever post to Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure how it should be done. ChristianCanCook (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

First thing is that the song should be shown to be significant to the topic. It's not enough that it simply exists.

Wikipedia content should come from WP:SECONDARY sources, which would be writers talking about the Sabaton song and how it relates to Murphy. A quick search online shows very little of this kind of stuff. For instance, the Blabbermouth news piece about the single doesn't mention Murphy. I don't have access but the local newspaper in Albuquerque wrote about it. I wouldn't go to lower tiers of publications such as college newspapers because the writers are not usually established as reliable. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Add heading *Television and link to his appearance as the "mystery celebrity" on the July 3, 1955 episode of What's My Line (double brackets to link to the show page). Link to jump to the time of his appearance on the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HKIhS2F8uE&t=1033 Jazzman197 (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

His TV appearances, including "What's My Line" are covered in Film career of Audie Murphy. His TV appearances were so few that they would not warrant a separate section in this main article. — Maile (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Murphy and his being a Freemason need to be mentioned.

I would like to see something added to his page concerning his service as a Freemason and work within the Scottish Rite in Dallas, TX. We have a display set up at the Scottish Rite Temple in his honor. But I do not see anywhere on his page about his being a Mason. Here is the link to a page evidencing his being a Mason. https://dallasfreemasonry.org/audie-murphy-dallas-mason/862 Thank you for considering it. J. Snead Tannehill Masonic Lodge #52, Dallas Texas.2605:6000:52C0:BF00:F0D9:AE8D:6A1B:8451 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

He was a Shriner, too. But how are these memberships important to his life story? We should be able to cite an independent publication (not Freemasons, not Shriners) talking about how he contributed. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You will find all that information at Audie Murphy honors and awards. — Maile (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2020

Fix citation 71 for medal of honour recipients. Possible website for citation <ref>https://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=421</refHdbanana (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Hdbanana (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks. — Maile (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

Should be added under "death and commemorations" at the end. https://www.sabaton.net/discography/heroes/to-hell-and-back/

In 2014, the rock band "Sabaton" released a song titled "To Hell and Back" in reference to Audie Murphy and his film. Vtopsecret (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eyebeller (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Awards list

The list of awards in the infobox is quite long, especially for mobile users. It might be a good idea to either make the list collapsible, or list only the most important/prestigious in the infobox and create an Awards and decorations section for the rest, see Leslie Groves for an example. 2A02:C7F:8EC2:1900:E469:B43B:6F47:7FB6 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by Bloodyboppa who deleted the awards from the infobox, without any consensus here. If anyone has a question about how military infobox awards are handled, please ask at WT:MILHIST, but do not wholesale delete the awards. — Maile (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

He was THE most decorated soldier of World War II. (Not “one of” the most). Historical fact. Quigley679 (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

1930 Hunt County Texas Census

Although Audie Murphy’s birth certificate states he was born in Hunt County, Texas in 1924, the Audie Murphy Foundation website maintains that Audie was really born in 1925, having falsified his birth certificate “so he could join the military before he was of legal age.” There is, however, another government document that shows Audie could not possibly have been born in 1925. The 1930 Hunt County Texas Census, which can be seen on the familysearch.org website, confirms the 1924 birth year. Thomas A. Harris, the enumerator of the census dated April 11, 1930, recorded that Murphy was six years old at his last birthday, the future Medal of Honor winner being only two and a half months away from his sixth birthday on that date. To view the 1930 Hunt County, Texas census, click on the following link and sign in to your familysearch.org account): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9RZZ-9GX?i=9&cc=1810731&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AC9SM-83Z Based on the 1930 Hunt County Texas census, I think Audie Murphy’s birth year for this article and other Wikipedia articles about him should be changed to 1924. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vulcanisaplanet (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see the first note under "Footnotes" section. Murphy listed his birthdate on his California driver's license as 1925, and had to have provided documented proof at the time he got his first license in California. Murphy's son Terry is the President of the Audie Murphy Research Foundation and lists his father's birthdate as 1925. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources where Family Search is listed as "Generally unreliable". — Maile (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

You have conflicting information about hos military career, in the summary section where you list the battles Murphy was in you have Tunisia, but in one of the first lines below that you say Murphy first saw action in Sicily. If Murphy first saw action in Sicily he could not have participated in the Battle of Tunisia. Please fix this. 199.255.201.58 (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Tunisia is only in the Infobox, not the body of the text, and there have been a lot of editors on this article since it achieved Feature Article status. Murphy was in the 3rd Infantry Division. Military career of Audie Murphy is sourced where it says, "After the 13 May surrender of the Axis forces in French Tunisia, the division was put in charge of the prisoners. They returned to Algeria on 15 May for "Operation Copycat", training exercises in preparation for the assault landing in Sicily." — Maile (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have reinserted the sourced Tunisia info into this article. — Maile (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Crash Location

Brushy Mountain is much closer to Maggie, Virginia than Catawba and Catawba is in Roanoke County, not Craig County. WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected it according to what the official NTSB investigation released. And all these years, it's been misidentified as "Brush Mountain". Thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the strange problem. There is both a "Brush Mountain" and a "Brushy Mountain" in this area. All of the official reports of the accident identify the spot as being on "Brushy Mountain". However, the stone marker that was placed by the VFW is on "Brush Mountain". This memorial is visited by many people and is supposed to be on the actual site of the crash. It is confusing. I have tried to figure out the truth, but I am still not sure what it is. Could the VFW memorial be on the wrong mountain in order to be nearer to the Appalachian Trail? That doesn't seem likely, but who knows? Were the original accident reports incorrect? Perhaps we should add a footnote noting the discrepancy until we can find a better explanation. Roam41 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add the footnote on this. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Left out that he was Governor of California

Seems like a glaring omission. 2600:6C65:717F:E3C8:69AD:EFCD:3C6E:AF76 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither Audie, nor anyone else named Murphy, was ever Governor of California. The state had a US Senator named George Murphy, but he was never governor. Audie never held elected office of any kind. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)