Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Audie Murphy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe the subject matter is of an appropriate importance, and because I would like this to ultimately become FA.. I have taken it as far as I can with resources available to me personally, and others have had their chance at doing so since its Feb 27, 2013 elevation to Good Article. I believe it needs real scrutiny on the sections involving military action and medals. My knowledge and resources are not in this field, and this area has been often rewritten by an editor who refused to source. The sources therein either existed prior to its Feb 2013 peer/GA reviews, or were added by me and editors other than the one who did so much rewriting. As much as I could, I tried to match military action and medals to sources I could find, but this needs experienced Military History editors looking at it. Additionally, I would like an opinion on how much of the Personal Life section needs to be there. Much seems scanty to me and there does not seem to be available verifiable information to expand. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments, not a complete review - Dank (push to talk)

• I bet he didn't know he was writing about his Wikipedia article.

You lost me on this one. I did a search in the article and only came up with links to the film. Nothing under "What Links Here" on the dab indicates it's linked to the article. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a joke. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah......— Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "his role model influence": his influence as a role model

 Done— Maile (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• "His widow Pamela devoted the rest of her life to the needs of veterans at a Veterans Administration hospital in Los Angeles.": Not sure that needs to be in the lead

 Removed — Maile (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to stop there for the moment; please go through with an eye for repetition. For instance: "Audie Leon Murphy was named after two local men who saved the family from starvation. ... Audie West also assisted in the birth of the baby named for himself and for Audie B. Evans Sr.", and "Emmett deserted the family ... Emmett abandoned the family for good in 1936 ... in the fifth grade when his father deserted the family". (Understood that the first "deserted" isn't the same as the second, which is a little confusing. It would probably work best to reword the first, and move the mention of the abandonment down to the "fifth grade" sentence.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do some reading of the sections soon, hoping to catch the kinds of things you are seeing. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Early life section only. I did much editing on it, so it looks ok to me. Let me know if you think otherwise. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I made some small changes. Keep going :) - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just went through the sections Filmography, Discography and Autobiography for copy editing. I'll go through the remaining non-military sections first. I don't think I have enough knowledge to copy edit military awards that the above-mentioned editor changed around and wouldn't source. Maybe the same thing on the military action. But I'll check prose on those, anyway. I'm just doing those last. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, Autobiography looks good now. There's probably more here to fix (missing spaces, missing "and", simple stuff) than I have time to cover, so I'll leave it there. Maybe we'll get some help. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dank, please note that I restored "Leave this alone" next to his birthdate in the infobox. I'm hoping that won't stop this from being an A-class. I recently did an analysis on the IP and redlink edits in the article's 10-year existance. That birth date controversy has been a bitter war and by far the #1 cause of disputes. I didn't even look at the registered users on that, but I imagine it's seen its battles among those also. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That wasn't me, that was a VisualEditor bug. I've fixed the errors it introduced, and turned off VisualEditor. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Haven't tried VisualEditor myself, but I see over at the Village Pump that editors are ironing out bugs. For today, I'm going to try and address Nick-D's comments below, and finish going through the individual sections myself. I see that every section I (and you) have so far gone through needed some prose editing. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
•  Done Continuing. "he was part of Allied Invasion of southern France": + the
  •  Additional information needed I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Please clarify. — Maile (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • he was part of the Allied Invasion of southern France - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, got it...a typo. Fixed. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "His post-war stress caused him to sleep with a loaded gun under his pillow, looking for solace in addictive sleeping pills. Murphy drew public attention to what would in later wars be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).": Suffering what would in later wars be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he slept with a loaded gun under his pillow and looked for solace in addictive sleeping pills.
•  Done "During his post-war civilian life": After the war - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Done"with diet change": with a change in diet
• Not sure "and gave the Army a June 28, 1942 sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that altered his birth date to June 20, 1924, instead of 1925": and gave the Army a sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that claimed he was born in 1924.
  • Reluctant to change precisely as you have suggested, because this is the sentence that verifies the whole birth date issue that has been the center of an edit war for years. If I change it as you suggest, it will just open the door to all that again. I am open to a suggestion that will include his correct birth year of 1925 and that Corrine falsified his birth date.— Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sigh. Okay, leave it as is. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Compromised a bit on this: "and gave the Army a sworn affidavit from his sister Corrine that falsified his birth date by a year". I just remembered the reference after that sentence points to the full explanation. Since the falsification is mentioned in the lead, I hope this meets you half-way on what you wanted. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Agreeing to serve for a specified period of service amounting to the duration of the war and a further six months": Did he agree to serve for the duration of the war plus six months? Did he agree to serve until February 1946? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This was a July 13 edit by AustralianRupert. Prior to that, I had for the specified period "Duration of the War and Six (6) Months." in quotes, because that's exactly how it was worded on his enlistment papers. If I change this back, someone else might come along and change it again. Therefore, I have just eliminated the part of that sentence that refers to it. Hope this takes care of it. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done "as 5 feet 5.5 inches (1.664 m) and his weight at 112 pounds (51 kg)": both "as", or both "at". - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Looks good, I'll pick this up again at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see an article on such a famous person up for an A-class review. In light of the nomination statement (especially "I believe it needs real scrutiny on the sections involving military action and medals") I'm going to go over it with a fine toothed comb - I hope that this is OK, and my comments should be seen in that light.

• I found the chronological flow of this article to be a bit confusing - Murphy's location at various times isn't clear, and what he was doing there isn't always put in proper context. You may wish to consult general histories of the campaigns in which he took part (see in particular the excellent summaries published by the US Army's Center of Military History here). I'd also suggest that you read through the Tom Derrick FA - Derrick was the Australian equivalent of Murphy, and his article (in which I had some involvement, so I may be biased!) does a good job of presenting his life and military service in fairly precise terms

 Note: Helpful information. I'll look through it over the next few days. The US Army link is the best online relevant info I've seen so far. And thanks for the Tom Derrick link-a structure example to follow has been needed. Beginning with the cleanup in Feb 2013 it has been for me and other volunteers in some aspects like sorting through the rubble after a disaster hit. What is relevant and verifiable? What is not? How do you put it back together like it should be? What you have provided is useful, so I'll study it. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done A note to Nick-D, Dank and all others. As I look at each section, I am beginning to realize the accuracy of the concerns here about the flow and pertinent details. Pieces are missing from the narrative it seems. It sometimes jumps from one place to the next with no flow or explanation of why he's suddenly in the next place. Probably because all involved have been doing patch work, rather than spending time on the whole of it. I'm going to have to go through this one section at a time. It looks a bit tedious from my point of view, and may take some time. The framework of the Tom Derrick article has been really helpful, and you may notice I've started to expand on the Audie Murphy lead in that manner. There was nothing in the lead that told a reader why he won all those medals. I hope those at this project can bear with me on the timeline, and that I can leave this open for A-class review. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed these issues throughout. I have to say, this has been a great teaching tool. This article doesn't even resemble the one that existed at the beginning of Feb 2013. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Yes Try to avoid citing Murhpy's memoirs except to recount his views - this is essentially a primary source.
•  Fixed "But he remained aware of his role model influence and refused offers for alcohol and cigarette commercials" - starting with "But" seems a bit abrupt
•  Fixed "Hunt County, Texas.[2][3][4][5][6]" - does this really need five references? Given that the content of these refs amounts to a note about the confusion over his year of birth, I'd suggest consolidating this into a single note.

Combined — Maile (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Removed "He tried to enlist in the ... Army paratroopers" - the paratroopers were a branch of the Army, and I don't think that they would have accepted direct enlistments (their personnel tended to be high performing volunteers from regular Army training intakes or other units)

Removed the paratroopers entirely. — Maile (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed"His company commander tried to have him transferred to a cook and bakers' school" do we know why? Note that - somewhat perversely - the US Army of the time had the view that smart soldiers should be in the technical services and the not-so-smart soldiers in the infantry, so this may not have been intended as a slight.

It was an issue of physical size. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "he arrived at Casablanca, Morocco in North Africa as one of the replacements for 3rd Platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division." - in keeping with the theme of dumb US Army processes, replacements tended to arrive in unformed groups, and then cooled their heals in rather grim "replacement depots" until they were posted to make up losses, so he probably didn't arrive as a replacement for this very specific unit.

I just put a period after "Morroco" and removed the rest of the sentence. Curious about when this was added, the article history helped me track this back to Apr 12, 2006. Wow, that misinformation has been there a long time.— Maile (talk)

•  Fixed "After the surrender of the German Afrika Corps" - the German unit which surrendered was actually the Panzer Army Africa, but note that it formed part of a larger German and Italian force. I'd suggest that you replace this with "after the surrender of the Axis forces in Tunisia" or similar as the identity of these units is irrelevant.
•  Fixed "Murphy's battalion was charged with protecting a machine-gun emplacement, rather than engaging in combat" - highly unlikely. Machine gun positions were typically protected by a small number of soldiers, and not an about 1000-man strong battalion, and the 3rd Infantry Division advanced rapidly through Sicily.

Nothing in the source given even referred to that in any form, so I removed the sentence entirely.— Maile (talk)

Actually, I found it, and it says "his company", but I changed it to "group", unspecified but not as much up for debate. Anyway, I'm going through paragraph by paragraph trying to improve the prose and flow and clarity of all this. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy and Lattie Tipton killed five enemy combatants after they witnessed the enemy gun down one of their men" - would they have not killed them if they hadn't seen the Germans kill an American soldier?

I've removed this sentence also. The kills were more while they were trying to protect a man who had been somewhat foolish in his movements, but it doesn't seem important enough to really include in the overall story. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is OK now. The incident has been integrated and fixed as part of the Mainland invasion of Italy. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "The German command sent a squad of soldiers in" - the grandly named "German command" here was probably a 20-something year old junior officer. I'd suggest replacing this with "A squad of German soldiers attacked the quarry" or similar
•  Fixed "Sieja was one of two people, the other being Lattie Tipton, to whom Murphy's book was dedicated" do we know what their relationship was?
•  Fixed Can the material on Anzio (for instance, "his unit became part of a major beachhead expansion assault") be married up with the well-documented events of this battle to explain what was going on? It's rather confusing.
•  Fixed "single-handedly took out" - he either killed, wounded or captured them them. Call it what it was.

I took care of this incident and in general copy edited the entire paragraph in which is was located. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Kerrigan was shortly thereafter permanently taken off the battlefield by a mortar-shell fragmentation" - do you mean wounds caused by fragments of a mortar shell?
•  Fixed "The 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its action at Montelimar from August 27–29, 1944" - what was Murphy's role in this?

Taken care of as the general re-write of the whole section. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "While trying to take a quarry near Cleurie on October 2, 1944,[82] Murphy followed to the rear of one of his patrols headed for the quarry. The enemy opened fire on the men, and Murphy made himself visible to draw the fire of the enemy." - watch for repetition (try not to repeat words in sentences)
•  Fixed "he wiped out the group" - as above. It's best to not use euphemisms.

This particular one was taken care of when I copy edited the whole first paragraph of Northeastern France. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy's unit was deployed to the area near Guémar to eliminate the Colmar Pocket." - this would have been one of many units involved in what was a major operation
•  Fixed "German tanks advanced launching heavy machine gun fire, pistols and rifles" - unclear. Tanks certainly produce lots of heavy machine gun fire, but they're not equipped with rifles or pistols
•  Fixed II have to confess that I found the account of the action for which Murphy won the MoH to be confusing - this is probably the most important part of the article, but it's rather disjointed and imprecise.

Whew! Your comment is an understatement. I rewrote the whole section, renaming it "Colmar Pocket". This section had been a bone of contention during the Feb-March edit war. I probably developed a mental block and didn't look at it since then. It was seriously confusing to do the re-write, because it was so convoluted and etc. (Interesting trivia if you've seen his movie of this, no eye witness account says the tank blew up as he walked away from it) The Riviera to the Rhine online book from the Center of Military History has been wonderful to this. As I've been going along through the whole Military service part, I took your suggestion re Anzio and have been trying to give the reader the story within the context of the events of which it happened. It really helps the flow of events. There's still some work to be done on this article, but nothing could be as bad as making sense of the MofH section. — Maile (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "He wiped out one full enemy squad" - as above
•  Fixed "his clothing ripped by artillery" - even a near miss by artillery would have killed him. I think that you mean bullets

Actually, the exact quote from an eyewitness account is, "His clothing was torn and riddled by flying shell fragments and bits of rock." I changed it to "his clothing was ripped by debris strewn through the air." I hope this works.— Maile (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Murphy's hour-long, single-handed battle came to a halt when his telephone line to the artillery fire direction center was cut by enemy artillery. He wandered in a complete daze to an outpost" - I don't get this. Why did he withdraw when he no longer had a working phone line? Was he calling in artillery, or keeping abreast of the general situation?

The eye witness account says nothing about his phone. It says he ran out of ammunition, and I have changed it appropriately.— Maile (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Removed "Reinforcements joined them for "the big attack"" - what's meant by "big attack"?
•  Removed"He stopped thinking of his men as people and viewed them only as part of the larger whole." - what does this mean? Did he stop caring about individual casualties among his own men?
•  Removed "The 3rd Infantry Division (Murphy) " - why the (Murphy)?

Because...it was some of the dumb unsourced content that kept being reinserted, removed, and reinserted again by a disruptive editor. I've removed it right now, but it stands as a good example of why this article needs a good go-through. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "On June 10, 1945, Murphy left Paris and arrived in San Antonio, Texas, to a hero's welcome" - it would have taken him much longer than a day to return from Paris.

Well, he didn't arrive until June 13, but sources vary on whether his departure was Paris or Salzburg. I fixed the date and omitted the point of departure. — Maile (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed This was also a pretty quick repatriation - I presume that he was sent home either as a reward, or to take part on bond-raising drives (or both) - can this be expanded upon?

Not sure how you're using the term "repatriation", but I think he was just on leave to spend time with his family. I'll see if I can expand on that. But later in the same paragraph, it does say he wasn't discharged until September 1945.— Maile (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it! He was ordered to Ft. Sam Houston, put on leave for recuperation, to report back to Ft. Sam afterwards. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed The sections on Murphy's post-war life are a bit confusing as they're not in chronological order. Also, try to avoid single paragraph sections. I don't see anything wrong with this level of detail on his personal life - he only spent a few years in the Army.

I did a general re-working of his civilian life, that I think addresses the issues you have raised. If not, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "At the time, Murphy was still sleeping at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club" - this is the first time this is mentioned
•  Removed "McClure's share of the book's royalties was 40 percent" - remarkably generous for a ghost writer. Do we know why?

Nope, we don't know why. All we know is that the publishing contract Murphy signed gave 40% to McClure. You could guess that it's because McClure did most of the writing, or that in his youthful gullibility Murphy felt a particular friendship deserved 40%, or that they had one of those Elvis-Colonel Parker relationships. But I've found nothing that can be sourced other than that it was 40%. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure "It is the second most-visited grave site, after that of President John F. Kennedy" - I think that a stronger citation is needed for this.

Agree with comment, and switched to a cite from the U.S. Army SAMC. Need your input on the new citation. This sentiment is expressed everywhere on the web, but I don't know if they're just repeating what has been repeated for decades. I don't find any real stats at the official Arlington site to indicate anything other than JFK's is the most visited. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed I think that all the material in the paragraph which begins with "In basic training at Camp Wolters, he earned a Marksman Badge" and the subsequent paras has been noted earlier in the article (though the exact dates might not have been) Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I need some input from you. This is not an isolated duplication on military awards and badges. They're all (I think) integrated into the military action prose according to when they happened. Then they're duplicated in the section on "Honors and awards". And duplicated again on the separate article Audie Murphy honors and awards. Which is a lot of duplication. My preference would be to leave them up in the military action section where the happened, leave a much briefer sentence or two under the "Honors and awards" section, with a link to the separate article where they are in a table. Please give me some feedback on this. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

I agree with you - this is the approach which was used in the Derrick article. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, I'm going to do my best to address these issues one by one. It might take some time, given that not all the references are at my desk. And almost the entire military service section has been edited by various editors, so I may have to start from Square One on researching some items. Do I have a time limit on addressing these issues? — Maile (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A-class reviews are closed as unsuccessful only if there is no consensus to promote the article after about a month (in effect, more like 5-6 weeks at present). Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Second round comments Fantastic work with redeveloping this article! It looks excellent, and I have only the following comments and suggestions:

•  Removed The background on Camp Kilmer seems unnecessary
•  Removed "Murphy was initially a platoon runner, but eventually was assigned to combat" - this was a front line combat role (platoon runners would have been infantrymen, and their work was often very dangerous)
•  Fixed A reference is needed to support the statement that "To Hell and Back has had multiple printings and been translated into Dutch, Italian, French, Norwegian and Slovene." Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Have you seen this recent story about Murphy? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/audie-murphy-a-texas-hero-still-missing-one-medal.html?_r=0 Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

 Note: I am glad to have this NY Times story and have bookmarked it. At this time, I am not using it on the main article, but your comments on that are welcome. If mentioned at all, I think it would be appropriate on the honors and awards subpage, as there are multiple honors that have been bestowed by Texas on that list. This is the first time I have seen a source on this story, but it's been dropped in the article (unsourced) repeatedly over the years by one unregistered user by the handle Audiesdad. Apparently, this is almost an annual event, to try to get Murphy that legislative medal of honor. And it often makes it as far as passing the legislature, but the governor always drops the ball - which cannot be an accident if he does it consistently. Texas has a huge military presence, and the governor might feel some pressure to honor living vets who are native Texans. I view this as an effort by Murphy's supporters to get this done. At this point, it's just a campaign, like trying to get someone a postage stamp. There has been a far bigger campaign ongoing to get Murphy a Presidential Medal of Freedom. This has also been happening for years, and has shown up on this article (and deleted as spam) for years. None of these are a done deal, and both of them dependent upon political peacocks..— Maile (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're the expect here :) Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support This article now easily meets the A-class criteria, and I'm very pleased to support its promotion. Great work in developing this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, thanks for doing this for for helping to make me a better editor in the future. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I reviewed this at Peer Review and can see you have done some excellent work since then. This is not a full review yet, just a few minor points at this stage (I will look to come back a bit later on):

•  Fixed watch for second commas. I fixed a few, but there are probably more

I'll have a look as I go through this again. Based on what I see that you removed, it might often be a case of how I was taught vs. what you believe to be correct. But I'll try and follow what I think your style is on this. — Maile (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm mainly talking about second commas around dates and state locations (e.g. "on June 10, 1945 he..." --> "on June 10, 1945, he..." and "at Keswick, South Australia he..." --> "at Keswick, South Australia, he..." (in those situations they should be added). The comma I removed was not a second comma issue, it was a comma splice. For instance, "Smith, was a tall man..." should be "Smith was a tall man..." (in those situations they should be removed). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to revise my comments here. It wasn't "your style" vs. anything else. It was comma overkill, and I ran across many of them. Hopefully, between you and me, we have caught them.— Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There were a few more, but I've fixed them for you now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "Major General Lucian Truscott.[19] The major general took them " --> "Major General Lucian Truscott.[19] Truscott took them..."

This was clunky, wasn't it? I combined the two sentences. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• some endashes are used where hyphens should be used, e.g. "machine–gun emplacement" --> "machine-gun emplacement"

 Note: Just so you know, en dash, em dash, hyphen...I get genuinely confused by this. And I've read everything there is to read on Wikipedia about this. I'll check as I go through this again, but... Admittedly, it's a weak point in my skills and understanding here. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked for this as I went through the article, but I didn't see anything. Perhaps you already caught the errors. — Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think these have been fixed now. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed this seemed a bit awkward: "His first kill as a soldier happened with Company B near Canicattì where he shot two fleeing Italian officer". This seems quite a passive way of saying this and I wonder if there is a better way;
  • Perhaps this might work: "Company B later took part in fighting around Canicatti, during which Murphy killed two fleeing Italian officers"? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "He was recommended to be a candidate for the United States Military Academy" - when was this? Could some sort of indicative date be added? Who recommended him? Additionally it seems a rather sterile way of wording his rejection. Perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it, for instance. "...a candidate for the United States Military Academy, but because his application had arrived late, he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the entrance exams and, at the age of ?, he did not meet the age requirements for war veterans to be accepted into the Academy"

Here I could use some input from you. Maybe it wasn't exactly a recommendation as much as an inquiry about the feasibility. And if so, maybe I should delete the mention. A May 24, 1945 communication from "CG 3rd Infantr Division", no specific name, requested information as to how Murphy could enroll for "class of 2 July 1945". The reply came from a Colonel R. R. Coursey on June 1, 1945, and said, "Considered inadvisable" because there wasn't enough time to study for the exams, and because there was pending legislation to "raise the age limit for war veterans to enter the USMA". Don Graham's book says Murphy "considered" enrolling but dropped the idea on his own. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, based on your explanation, I'd definately suggest rewording it. It probably worthy of a mention, but needs more context. As such, if you decide to keep it, I think you should add some indication of when it occured. "CG 3rd Infantr Division" is possibly the "commanding general", but to be honest that isn't a designation that I've heard before. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded it to include as much as I know. Feel free to edit it if you like. But I agree that it needed to be addressed, because some editor later down the line will otherwise wonder why he wasn't "recommended". — Maile (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed"After the June 25, 1950, commencement of the Korean War" --> did Murphy seek to go to Korea? Is this known? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "he tried to enlist in the Marines and the Navy but was turned down for being underweight ... With a sworn affidavit from his sister that altered his birth date by a year, he was finally accepted into the Army". The first part of this states that weight was the issue, while the second part implies that he did not meet the age requirement for the Army, although it doesn't specifically state this. The lead does, though, so I think you need to reword the body of the article to more clearly article this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
•  Fixed "an unnamed soldier in their unit as they traveled along the Volturno River" --> this probably should be reworded. The soldier obviously had a name; however, it seems the source does not name him. As such, the sentence probably should clarify this. Perhaps something like this might work: "One of the early skirmishes recounted by author Don Graham, involved Murphy, his best friend Lattie Tipton (referred to as "Brandon" in Murphy's book To Hell and Back) and an unnamed soldier..." (There might be other ways of rewording this that also achieve the intent if this wording is not to your liking);
•  Fixed in the References section there are two red errors which appear to indicate that there are no citations to the Fagen and Nott sources. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see red errors. However, what sourced to the Fagan is what got separated out to Audie Murphy filmography. Same thing with multiples references to the Nott sourcing. Nott actually appears as a full Cite Book in ref 127. I've eliminated both Fagan and Nott under References. — Maile (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

G'day, you need to have the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script installed to see the errors; nevertheless, you've fixed it. I've added my support above now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, thanks for your time on this. I've now downloaded the Uchcha script. Every tool is helpful. I do remember your doing the Peer Review, and you were very helpful at that time. Also, thank you for pointing my attention at the nitpicking things my instincts were not yet attuned to, such as the commas. Your input has been helpful on the Audie Murphy article, but will also be helpful on my skills going forward at Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Support You're linking to the wrong tank. I think you'll find that the Mark VIs were Tiger tanks, and not British WWI tanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed Thank you for catching. I have changed the link accordingly. — Maile (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Fixed "General Alexander Patch" should be "Lieutenant General Alexander Patch"
•  Fixed "General Jacob Devers" should be "Lieutenant General Jacob Devers"
•  Fixed "General R. B. Lovett and Lt. Col. Hallet D. Edson" should be "Brigadier General Ralph B. Lovett and Lieutenant Colonel Hallet D. Edson"
•  Fixed "Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch," in the next sentence should just be "Patch", as he has already been introduced.
•  Fixed I would have thought an article on Murphy would have given equal weight to his movie and and military careers, but instead we have two separate articles. It wasn't obvious to me that the Filmography was a co-equal article and not a list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, I didn't do an overkill on correcting this. But now that I understand what you were getting at, I changed the hatnote in the section to the more appropriate one. And I put a different hathote at the top of the article that tells the reader where to find the details of the film career. Thanks for pointing this issue out to me. — Maile (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, until July 5th there was more text in the main article Filmography section. When I was rearranging the whole article into chron order, I also shortened the section on films. Here's the Diff. Now, I can always put that back if you think it should be in this article. Just let me know, please. And, by the way, the reason it got separated out is size. Back in Feb when this was a much smaller article but everything was one, it was nearly impossible for me to edit and save without lengthy waits, because of the size at that time. And if you're thinking there should be something more extensive on the separate article about his film career, his career really didn't merit it. Not because of the quantity of films, but because most of them were the "quick and dirty, take the money and run" types. Often low budget, low quality, done in 10 days, and he was at times just going through the motions. There's only so much to be said about that. His movie career was not equal in accomplishment to his military career. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, I realize that this issue of the Filmography could cause you to oppose this nomination. So, I would like to give you some background information on the splitting it off into its own article. As I say, the main article was too large for me to edit on my computer. I searched through Wikipedia and found wP Split. On Feb 10, the main article was 74,277 bytes, which according to WP Split means something could be divided off. The filmography wasn't well developed, so Initially, I just temporarily split it off into a child article to help my being able to edit everything. By Feb 20, I gave the filmography its own article. I also split the honors and awards off onto its own page on Feb 11 for the same reason. Right now, the main article is again 77,664 bytes. The filmography is 41,676 bytes, and the honors and awards is 41,024 bytes. I understand your concerns about the filmography content. I tell you this as someone who who has always seen Murphy as the cowboy movie hero first, and a medal of honor winner as just a part of his life. Until I tried to improve this article, I didn't know much about his military service except his reputation. It's been disheartening to research the filmography, and to watch his old movies over and over as I do this. Other than making two films for John Huston, one of which Huston later disowned because of quality, Murphy's career was unremarkable. The industry saw him as a way to make a quick buck with the least possible effort. He was a man with a 5th grade education and doing the best he could in an industry the eats its own. Watching some of those old movies, I'm embarrassed for him and think he must have been very frustrated. But all of that is POV. Researching the filmography was often scanty, because a lot of his films aren't even mentioned in books that include his works, or they're just a sentence in passing. I can't go back 60 years and reinvent his career. I think I've done the best I can, writing about it in a way that allows the reader to make up their own mind. But combining the filmography with the main article would make it almost 120,000 bytes, which WP Split says should be divided. Whatever you decide about this, I thank you for your time and input here on this request. — Maile (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to oppose the nomination. I was merely going to suggest that you consider making it clearer that the movie career is detailed in the filmography article for the benefit of readers who come looking for information on that aspect of his career. I disagree about his movie career, insofar as Murphy the cowboy is the image that the two of us have of Murphy. (And, as it happens, my sister is a huge fan of his.) I was a bit disappointed that you made little use of To Hell and back. For the MilHist folk, here is Murphy's account of the action ar Holtzwihr, from pp. 248-249

It is murderous. A single tree burst knocks out our machine-gun squad. The second tank destroyer is hit flush, and three of its crew are killed. The remainder, coughing and half-blinded, climb from the smoking turret and sprint down the road to the rear. At that moment I know that we are lost.
The smoke shell whizzes over, landing beyond the oncoming Germans.
200 right; 200 over. And fire for effect.
Our counter-barrage is on the nose. A line of enemy infantrymen disappear in a cloud of smoke and snow. But others keep coming.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over, and keep firing for effect.' That artillery curtain must be kept between us and the enemy.
The tanks are now close enough to rake our position with machine-gun fire. Of the hundred and twenty-eight men that began the drive, not over forty remain. And I am the last of seven officers. Trying to stop the armour with our small arms is useless. I yell to the men to start pulling out.
'What about you?' shouts Kohl.
'I'm staying up with the phone as long as I Can. Get the men back, and keep them grouped. Candler will help you.'
'Candler's dead.'
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'. .
'50 over, and keep blasting. The company's pulling back.'
I raise my eyes and see that the men are hesitating. Clapping down the receiver, I yell, 'Get the hell out of here. That's an order!'
Kohl says something, but his words are lost in a shell burst.
He shrugs his shoulders, beckons with his thumb, and the men stumble through the woods, casting worried glances backward.
I seize my carbine and start sniping. The advance wave of infantrymen is within two hundred yards of my position.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over. Keep it coming.'
Dropping the receiver, I grab the carbine and fire until I give out of ammunition. As I turn to run, I notice the burning tank destroyer. On its turret is a perfectly good machine gun and several cases of ammunition. The German tanks have suddenly veered to the left. I change my plans and drag the telephone to the top of the. tank destroyer. The body of the lieutenant with whom I talked early in the morning is sprawled over the edge of the hatch. His throat has been cut; a small river of blood streams down the side of the tank destroyer. I finish dragging the body out and dump it into the snow.
The telephone rings.
'How close are they?'
'50 over, and keep firing for effect.'
'How close are they to your position?'
'Just hold the phone and I'll let you talk to one of the bastards.'
Hastily checking the machine gun, I find that it has not been damaged. When I press the trigger, the chatter of the
gun is like sweet music. Three krauts stagger and crumple in the snow.
Crash! The tank destroyer shudders violently. Vaguely I put two and two together and conclude that the TD has received another direct hit.
The telephone rings.
'This is Sergeant Bowes. Are you still alive, lieutenant?'
'Momentarily.' I spread the map on my left palm. 'Correct fire:-'
Crash! I am conscious of a flash and explosion. I reel back with the map and telephone receiver in my hands. .
'Lieutenant. Lieutenant. Can you hear me? Are you still alive, lieutenant?'
'I think so. Correct fire: 50 over, and keep the line open.'

— Murphy, To Hell and back, pp. 248-249

Some clarification on my editing of that section. First of all, back up with Nick-D suggestion of "Try to avoid citing Murhpy's memoirs except to recount his views - this is essentially a primary source," I started removing where I had used Murphy's book as a source. If I erred, that's some of the reason. Also, this section has been a primary battlefield between a disruptive editor (who never sourced and was apparently not always too picky about fact and accuracy) in Feb-March, and anyone else. I was unable to keep track of it then and still make sense of what was happening. Not to make an excuse, but recounting military history is not my best talent. Give me a few days, please, to go back and see what I can do about including Murphy's perspective on Holtzwihr. Also, I'll work on the wording of the filmography section a bit.

--As for Murphy's movies, my embarrassment over his having to make some of those movies has nothing to do with my joy at watching him do his thing. I could watch him forever. From my point of view, as a person born in Texas and surrounded by cowboy relatives, Murphy was the only one ever convinced me he was a cowboy. Others may have made credible movies in the genre, but I knew they were acting. Murphy made me believe he was the genuine article. I merely meant it that I have begun to see it from his point of view, perhaps colored by comments from him "I made the same movie 30 times. Only the horse changed." and others who said he never took that profession seriously. We could go movie by movie. "The Quick Gun" is one of those with low production values where they filmed men on horses riding around rocks, and edited it to repeat multiple times so the audience would think it was more men on horses than it was. "Battle at Bloody Beach", one of my favorites, was obviously filmed at different periods because his weight and face fullness changed. Not just from scene to scene-but sometimes from angle shot to angle shot seems filmed at different times. There's a village fight scene in that black and white movie that makes me feel as if I'm watching an old Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movie. The music is out of place and sounds more Keystone Cops. "A Time for Dying" is now on YouTube - you might want to catch it. Murphy and Budd Boetticher produced it. Murphy has a cameo is the only one with any acting skills. That type of thing. I just see it from his point of view, that's all.— Maile (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, what you did is exactly what I was hoping for. Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. I don't know if the above mentioned desire to see Murphy's account reinserted into the article would prevent this from promotion, but I'm working on this anyway. Assuming this makes it to Class A, I will need any and all advice taking it up for FA review. I've never been through that process. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Read at your convenience, Hawkeye7. I'll post a diff as I finish each section of military service. You can see how I'm doing it, because I've received conflicting messages since Feb - not enough Murphy, too much Murphy, don't use Murphy's book, etc. But I think his perspective adds to it. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Colmar Pocket
• Northeastern France
• S/se France
• Italy

 Done Nothing in his book to add about North Africa, so Hawkeye7, I hope I've done it as you asked. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I think it's great. Pleased to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.