Talk:Audie Murphy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Apparent quotes not being quoted

There are a number of sentences in this article that are apparent quotes from statements by other soldiers or even Murphy himself, but they are not being quoted. All of these need to be examined closely for potential plagiarism and re-worded so they are not closely paraphrased. Here is an example: "Murphy was surrounded by enemy infantry fire, and he stood in the midst of rising smoke and flames, his clothing ripped by artillery aimed directly at him." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Example was introduced here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Audie_Murphy&diff=541348099&oldid=541134451. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Marcus. Not sure what you are implying. My point is this is interesting prose and sounds like it was written by a soldier writing up his boss or a peer, or it's from a novel. Strictly speaking it is either a) not encyclopaedic language or b) likely plagiarism. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No implications. Just highlighting the diff. to allow for it and contribs surrounding it to be easily addressed and either quoted or referenced more in line with standards. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me take a good look at all of this today. Feel free to tag anything in case I miss it. So much has been done back and forth, I can't remember who did what on things like this. But the example you give came from the official statement given by First Lieutenant Walter W. Weispfenning on why Murphy deserved the Medal of Honor. You're correct in that it should either be a quote, or it's plagiarism. I'll try and clean this kind of stuff up today. But I might miss some, so please tag what you feel necessary for me to catch. Thank you for taking a good look at this. — Maile (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Understand it has been a bit bunta here. I'd say some GA criteria are under threat if you aren't able to get it back on track in a reasonable time though. I'll lay off and drop back for a squiz in a week or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This may have also been something I did. I looked at so many sources when I was trying to expand/clean up, that I reached a point where I knew the the narrative, but probably did some mis-steps. Anyway, I'll go through. Whether it was me or someone else, it certainly needs to be taken care of. — Maile (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's not a direct quote from Weispfenning, but it's his statement I've used as a source at the end of the sentence. What Weispfenning said was, "He climbed on the burning tank destroyer ..." and "...the tank he was standing on was hit by artillery fire and Lieutenant Murphy was enveloped in clouds of smoke and spurts of flame. His clothing was torn and riddled by flying shell fragments and bits of rock." Etc. I don't know how I came to write what you believe was a quote, if I'm the one who did that, but what makes you think it was a quote? I think you need to tag questionable things in the article. Help me focus on what you believe is wrong here and there. Plagiarism would definitely not have been on purpose if it came from me. But if you're talking about "not encyclopaedic language" and I would have been the one who did it, then I'm also unlikely to locate what you're talking about without tags. The National Archives website is such that it wipes out any URL link within about half an hour. But if you go to The Natl Archives search site, and in the search area input the ARC Identifier "299785", it will link you to Weispfenning's official statement of record.— Maile (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not in source

Challenging referencing:

• Article entry by YahwehSaves reads "The 3rd Infantry Division (Murphy) was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its actions at Colmar and Neuf Brisach during the period of 22 January to 6 February, 1945."
• Source states "The 15th Infantry was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for the fighting in the pocket."
• Although the 15th Infantry Regiment is part of the 3rd Division, the source does not state that the entire Division received the Presidential Unit Citation as is being claimed here, so the reference is being used inaccurately. Please correct or it must be removed. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  

Indiscriminate: Added proof from 3rd Div's site that 3rd Inf. Div. PUC GO 44 reference is correct reference and does not say Colmar "pocket"; the "15th Infantry Regiment" did not receive a separate PUC-WW2 as anyone can see now for themselves. Placed the 3rd Div PUC in the Holtzwhir section which I was going to do. Your added source is incorrect and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Isn't my source, it's yours.. you need to correct it. And you're still not signing your posts properly. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Cynical: Prove that the Global source (yours here above) is my source. I never posted that Gobal 1/15 Infantry source anywhere that you just gave for a 15th Infantry PUC instead of the correct 3rd Division PUC. I posted only the GO 44 and GO 21 PUC's references for Murphy correctly in this article.YahwehSaves (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Too many individual edits for me to do digging for proof of one contrib, nor do I see the need. If you think you've found a more accurate source, then you shouldn't have any trouble dealing with one I raised, should you? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The inaccurate PUC reference source that you used was from Maile66, March 3, 2013, 13:15 to Honor and awards section. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

These scans of pages alone are insufficient for an article aiming to pass FA standards. Please cite the full title, author/editor, year of publication, page numbers, location and name of publisher and ISBN if available, per referencing standards, of the publication these pages come from. The scans can also be linked via the "url" parameter of the {{cite book}} template, if necessary, to allow them to be read, but because warfoto.com is an amateur website, it cannot be considered a reliable source, per se. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves, let's see if we can clarify all of the sourcing addressed here. This is getting really confusing for everyone.

• Yes, I was the one who had the Global website as a reference. I understand you challenge that as a credible source. I have deleted that source on the honors and awards page, so we do not have to debate that source. When I look at Scan #4 and Scan#5, I recognize these to be from the book History of the Third Infantry Division, which is a credible source. When MarcusBritish above says the scans alone are insufficient, I'm pretty sure he means the sourcing needed to be expanded to make it credible. But I do recognize the book.

1) Over on the Audie Murphy honors and awards page, when I referenced the War Dept's General Orders No. 44, it was actually Page 431 of that book. I have now expanded that citation so it reflects that it is found in that book. That would be the one that was awarded to the entire 3rd Infantry for action at the Colmar Pocket, January 26-February 6, 1945. Is that how you understand that?

2) I'm trying to understand about the other one, the one that you disagree with the source. Page 432 of this same book, where you have provided a scan, General Orders No. 21, March 30, 1945, that says the citation was for the 1st Battalion, 15th Regiment, for action inMontelimar, France between the days of 27-29 August, 1944. Is that how you understand that?

So we don't get anymore confused on this particular sourcing, I am asking if you and I understand the same way about 1) and 2). If we both understand it that way, then the differences of opinion on this issue are resolved. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I had added (now revised) to the article at Holtzwhir section and Honor and awards section: The 3rd Infantry Division (Murphy) was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its action at Colmar during the period 22 January to 6 February 1945. My reference (source) at Holtzwhir section and Honor and awards section for this before and now is War Dept. General Orders No. 44, 3rd Infantry Division, 6 June 1945.
The citation includes by name, the capture of Neuf Brisach. Colmar "Pocket" and "Holtzwhir" is not mentioned by name. The Army Presidential Unit Citation streamer says "Colmar".

British above, 2nd line:

• "Source states the 15th Infantry was awarded the Presidential unit Citation for fighting in the pocket."

British's "source" here is not my GO 44 reference but Globalsecurity.net - 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, which is (was) an unreliable leftover March 3 source reference by Maile66 to the Honor and awards section for the PUC.
The Audie Murphy Memorial site is a personal site that managed to take over the Audie Murphy Research Newletter. The site owner doesn't seem to mention or show like other awards he shows there, the 2 PUC awarded to Murphy! Because one doesn't have "Holtzwhir" in the citation? (Its known that the 3rd Inf. Div. was awarded the PUC and another PUC). I corrected and added here the Murphy article's 2 PUC's (by GO 44&21) . The "private" ranks of Joe Sieja and Lottie Tipton at the AudieMurphy.com site hasn't been corrected by the site owner (?). I corrected to PFC ranks here (they were important to Murphy since he dedicated his book to them). GO 21 says "On August 27" and also says " in three days". The Army Presidential Unit Citation streamer says Montelimar. GO 44 doesn't say "entire 3d Infantry Division" but 3d Infantry Division and attached units (not 3rd Div units; 254th Regiment is from 63rd Infantry Division, that was attached to the 3rd Inf. Div. during this battle thus entitled to the 3rd Divison's PUC). The 3rd Infantry Division (entire) was awarded a PUC .

GO 44 (GO 44-23) and GO 21 are official Distinguished Unit Citations (PUC).
GENERAL ORDERS No. 44 is XXX__Battle Honors.---Paragraph 2, section XIII...WD General Orders 44, 1945, 3d Infantry Division..., signed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Chief of Staff. AGO 3183B
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1948

YahwehSaves, I'm marking this section as Resolved, and we can move on with getting this article in shape. I appreciate what you did with putting the scans into the text so we can see the references. I think WP will see those as Bare URLs, and that needs to be fixed by the time this article moves up to another review. If you are unsure how to fix that, maybe another editor can assist. But on the issue of which reference is correct, I accept the references you have presented for these citations. As this article gets closer to another review, the next one being for A Class at Military History, and the one after that for Featured Article review, the scrutiny will be a lot more under the microscope. The folks at Military History are experts in their arena, and they'll want it perfect. Featured Article review can be intense, from what I've seen. Anything that goes on the Main Page has to be as perfect as it can be, with no outstanding issues. So, let's move forward. Thank you for your efforts. — Maile (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If the scans are from the book History of the Third Infantry Division, which I did Google for from the scan but could not confirm that it was the right publication, then those details need to be replaced now rather than waiting for the next review, seeing as the issue is already known and understood by everyone here – simply swap out those .gif scans to {{cite book}} refs or whatever reference method is being employed. We don't need to "see" every reference, just have accurate citations. As I said before, those scans could probably be placed in the "url" parameter. It's not just a Milhist requirement, but Wiki in general, per the second pillar which states Wikipedia's NPOV principles. Providing reliable sources requires accurate referencing. Scans cause identification issues: "Where did this come from? Who wrote it? When? Where? How can I find it?" – all of which can easily be solved by textually citing the book instead, as it all falls down to WP:Verifiability rather than Bare URLs. If sources can't be verified, they can't be considered reliable, however "official" a scan may appear. There are too many people willing to create fraud material, especially online, it's easy to recreate pages and documents with "tweaks" and expect people to believe in them. It's harder to link to fraud title as we can confirm if it has really been published and if the cited pages say what you claim. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is the book.History of the Third Infantry Division in World War II, written by the Third Infantry Division and Donald G. Taggert in 1947. It's had updated editions since then, which might change the page numbers. Scan #4 does have "History of the Third Infantry Division" at the top of the scanned page. Since the scans were done by YahwehSaves, he would need to be who comes up with the sourcing on those scans. By the URL on the scans, it looks like Yahweh Saves got these scans www.warfoto.com, which in a tiny footnote says "* From 'The History of the Third Infantry Division in World War II' ©1947,1999 Battery Press" This is a specialized book that is not easy to locate at libraries or online. I'll remove the above "Resolved" tag, until we get the sourcing properly formatted within the article — Maile (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Battery Press is along the lines of Turner Publishing in that they tend to reprint old unit histories. Sometimes they're updated with "veterans' stories" and the like, while other time they are not. Many of those older histories would be considered self-published or vanity press products today, just FYI. Intothatdarkness 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone with knowledge of the source needs to cite the material to some version of the book asap, doesn't matter who, the concern now is that warfoto website is not a reliable source as it stands, whereas if the scan was on a US government site it might carry more weight. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, to get this up to code, it's more than just these two places that need to be cleaned up. YahwehSaves has put others in the body of the article text. At Montélimar. he has #2, a duplicate of #4 down in the honors and awards section. The last sentence under the Holtzwihr, France section has #3 scan, which is a duplicate of #5 in the honors and awards. The French Legion of Honor in the honors and awards section has #6, which is just a bare URL link to a website image of the award. These things also need to be cleaned up, because they don't adhere to Wikipedia policy. YahwehSaves, I realize you are doing this with good intent. But please study how Wikipedia citations are done. Otherwise, you are creating duplicate work for other editors to tag and/or clean up. We spend our time double checking your edits, rather than making useful edits ourselves. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, GA standards require that articles to meet WP:FNNR guidelines, else they risk losing GA status. This article was okay upto and during the review, it has rapidly fallen below these standards since because they are being ignored, which is disruptive and disrespectful behaviour given that editors are committing more time and effort to this than is absolutely necessary. YahwehSaves: Suggest you read WP:GA criteria and make sure to follow them, and be prepared to follow WP:Milhist A-Class criteria and WP:FA criteria when other editors are clearly aiming for this level. It's not asking much that you co-operate with other editors on this matter, it's no different to keeping a room tidy instead of making a mess and expecting others to clean up after you. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't done with my statements above and needed to go over it. I'm not a professional editor and don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know. But I can make the necessary corrections to articles sometimes.
The scans are from a 3rd Infantry Division site as I first said.
The "3rd Infantry Division" Presidential Unit Citation (no "15th Infantry Regiment" PUC), 6 June, 1945, is GO No. 44 which is from:
War Department Pamphlet - Distinguished Unit Citations, February 1946. AGO 281A---Jan.
GO 44, Page 6 through 8 (6-8 or 6--6?), Section XIII__Battle Honors, Paragraph 2. AGO 208B
US Government Printing Office 1946;
GO 44-23; GO 23, Page 8, GO 44 amended to include 141st Field Artillery Battalion. Official.... Dwight D. Eisenhower, Chief of Staff. AGO 3183B.
The GO 21, 30 March, 1945, "1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment", PUC, is official too (AGO 12B--Apr. 637402---45), I don't have the rest of the details for GO 21 from this Pamplet.
Battle of Comar is called the battle of the Comar pocket which is the Alsace pocket.YahwehSaves (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

None of us are "professional" editors, but you've been registered since May 2011 which is only 3 months less than me, and have over 2,000 edits to your registered account, plus more to IPs you've used, that at least makes you "experienced" with how Wiki works and what is expected of editors in terms of guidelines. If you're not yet familiar with them, then I think you need to take some time to review the guidelines, such as WP:V and more particularly the Manual of Style and become better acquainted with style and layout formats. As Maile66 has noted, taking an article to Featured Article takes a LOT of time and effort and is VERY strict in terms of how things are written and presented. If you are not prepared to make time to learn how to do that, why should other editors be prepared to review and correct your edits? It would be far easier to simply revert them. If you don't want that to happen then you're simply going to have to make the time. As much as we'd all like to assume good faith, there comes a time when patience wears thin, and the burden of proving you are actually acting in good faith, as opposed to just being a pain in the ass, falls on you. Editors working on creating FA articles will receive more credit and some level of immunity from "edit war" claims, that much is certain. As this article is now GA and is heading for A-class and FA you need to catch-up, there's no point of you still learning to walk whilst the rest of us have learned to run. The guidelines and MOS are not hard to understand, and as long as a conscious effort is being made to follow them, other editors will tolerate some mistakes and guide you. If there is no effort, the heads will butt and you may find yourself left unable to edit the page if it proves disruptive to advancement. Simple as that. Progression is good, don't be a Luddite. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I second Marcus' points. Saying you "don't know all the technicalities you're talking about or time to know" isn't good enough. If you want to contribute to articles (particularly those that are already assessed as GA or above) you are responsible for properly citing your edits IAW the WP:MOS and the relevant criteria. If you can't or won't do that, you can expect to face some hurdles in editing them at all, because some editors who have invested significant time in those articles will consider your editing disruptive and may bring your actions to the attention of the community with the intention of getting you banned from editing those articles. It is in everyone's best interests (including that of Wikipedia as a whole) that if you wish to edit articles at this level that you spend the time to educate yourself on how these things are done. We've had to, and I don't see why you should be any different. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I was not clear enough as need be since the ref 116 - ref name "global security" is still in use ("15th Infantry was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its fighting at the pocket") and inappropriate, confusing at least Mailee66: Murphy was awarded only 2 PUC's in WW2, based on he was a member of only 2 "units" awarded the PUC: the 3rd Infantry Division (cited, "3d Infantry Division": PUC GO 44) and the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment (cited, "1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment": PUC GO 21).
Though the The 15th Infantry Regiment (3 Infantry battalions) was part of the 3rd Infantry Division it was not cited in WW2, otherwise Murphy would have 3 PUC awards. The 15th Infantry Regiment was awarded the PUC based only that it is part of the 3rd Infantry Division. Because of Audie Murphy, its well known for many years that the 3rd Infantry was awarded the PUC in WW2; GlobalSecurity.org - 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry (116 ref.) and GlobalSecurity.org - 3rd Infantry Division, does not say the 3rd Infantry Division was awarded the PUC for WW2; there is no "GlobalSecurity.org - 15th Infantry Regiment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

While you're at it, please learn how to edit a simple sentence. There needs to be some basic skills in place to edit at Wikipedia. You have not demonstrated any willingness to learn the skills. I noticed you once again failed to sign, but instead copied my online signature and stuck it at the end of your writing. You stuck in coding that hid the sections below this one. Was that deliberate, or is it just that you don't know what you're doing? Please learn to edit before you mess everything up. And my online signature does NOT go at the end of whatever you are typing. You are NOT allowed to affix my signature at the end of your messages. You can't get the very basic thing straight, how to sign your own name. And when it comes to complaining about any other sourcing, you don't have much credibility since you have consistently demonstrated a disregard for adding sourcing of your own. In fact, earlier up in this thread you have indicated you don't have time for the finer points like adding sources. Your most consistent post seems to be whining that we don't take you seriously, that we might be picking on you. Hey! Get a clue! We're trying to raise the level of this article, and we're spending all our time checking out where you're dropping posts into the works. We are not here to teach you how to edit. Please read the Wikipedia Manual of Style and learn how to edit on this encyclopedia. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not diliberate. The topic here is the 3rd Infantry Division (is cited, GO 44) and the "source" (GlobalSecurity.org - 1st battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment; says 15th Inf. was awarded the PUC). Checked Army unit pamphlet - "The 15th Infantry Regiment" was not awarded the PUC (15th Inf. Regt. was not cited; 1st Bn., 15 Inf. Regt. was cited, GO 21). Murphy was awarded the Army PUC Emblem with OLC (counts as 2 individual decorations). The 2 deleted PUC scans are ok with correct GO #'s. The 2 Army PUC streamers (3rd Inf. Div. & 1st Bn., 15th Inf. Regt. are embroidered with "Colmar" and "Montelimar". Peace.YahwehSaves (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Military history A-Class criteria

This is the WikiProject Military history A-Class criteria. A1 on that list is really, really important, as are the other items. But right up at the top, the Military History project stresses the sourcing. Please make sure any edits follow these guidelines to the limit. Appropriate links for achieving those ideals are found within the text of the criteria. The next review of this article will be at Military History. We must follow their guidelines to get this ready for review. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Western Arms Company

I have removed the unsourced information about the Great Western Arms Company. This company is not mentioned in any of the Murphy biographies and he doesn’t actually appear to have been an owner. The original and only source for this misinformation seems to be from Wikipedia itself, on the Great Western Arms Company page. The book cited there, "Stagecoach to Tombstone: The Filmgoers' Guide to Great Westerns", mentions Murphy only briefly and has nothing in it at all about this gun manufacturer. I did find some internet discussion on a few gun collector forums about Murphy possibly having appeared in some of the company’s advertising brochures. This is entirely possible and a more likely connection than his being an owner, but again I can’t find any actual proof of this either. Roam41 (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here on the talk page, so we'll have the reference in case it gets reinserted somewhere down the line. This has been in the article since October 16, 2012, and I had looked in vain to find a source when we started the clean up in Feb 2013. So thank you for taking care of this. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Roam41: You'll also find I just failed verification of the "Stagecoach to Tombstone" citation you mention at the Great Western Arms Company article, for reasons noted in the talk page there. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Same editor who erroneously inserted that claim on the AM page, is the creator of the Great Western Army Company article. Based on that page's What Links Here, I suspect it was done to keep the page from being an orphan. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@MarcusBritish: Thank you for taking care of that. I am new to Wikipedia and was unsure of the best way to edit the GWAC page as it seemed I would have to delete one of their few listed sources.I was hoping a more experienced editor would see this post and make the proper corrections. Roam41 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I haven't corrected it as such, as I could not find a page in the book to cite per the claims made in the article, so the {{FV}} tags have been placed to make the author and readers aware of the discrepancy. If you do ever come across an alternative source, feel free to remove the dubious one provided and cite the alternative. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I notified the creator about the verification issues and he updated it with new sources which are on Google. You both may want to look at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lBynVCWJ230C&pg=PA126&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, where it states clearly there that Murphy was one of the owners of the GWAC. Probably worth re-adding the ownership claim back into the article, with this source cited, as it looks legit. Will leave it to you to review and consider if it's a notable enough thing for inclusion. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I added it back in, there are other sources citing Murphy's relationship with the company, I can dig them up if you like.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Best you discuss it with User:Maile66, as I believe he's still working on getting this article to FA quality for review, so he'll probably be the one who needs to integrate anything into the article that you can provide, to firmly support the claim. I'm sure he'll be happy to see any good sources you have, given the lousy ones that have been provided previously, for various things. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike Searson, I see the reference you provided does indeed say Audie Murphy was one of the owners. It seems legitimate. However, this is an interesting aspect of Murphy's career. If you can find a way to expand his involvement, and make sure it's sourced, that would be a welcome addition. Yes, we're still working on getting this to FA, so your adding sourced information to this tidbit would be good. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. He was a spokesman for the company originally (as was John Wayne) and I have several sources for that, too. IIRC, he was made a partner because of some money that he was owed by GWA or one of the other owners. I will have to go through some gun magazines and firearms books, for you to verify this. On a related note, and I don't know if it is trivial or not but Hugh O'Brian supposedly had a standing bet of $1,000 for anyone who could out draw him. Murphy offered him $5k if they would do it with live ammo, but O'Brien declined. Source is in an interview O'Brien gave to a fastdraw magazine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I read that exact same Hugh O'Brien story in Don Graham's book. I'm a little leery of putting stories like that, sourced or not, in this article. Many tall tales are spun when a celebrity is alive, just for the publicity. After death, even more so. What is truth? What is something someone made up, and people have repeated as gospel over the decades, just because it sounds colorful and the kind of thing that celebrity would have done? I think we need to steer clear of things like that. If I found one flaw with Don Graham's book, it's that he repeated stories about Audie's character and behavior, often without naming the source, that someone who knew Audie just had the need to tell, but Audie wasn't alive to verify or deny it. Suspicious stuff, those stories. The next step in this article is to go for an A class at Military History, and they're sticklers on facts. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Here's an excerpt from Shoot Magazine written by John Taffin in 2011: "Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, another gun company was founded, Great Western Arms Co. of Los Angeles. Shooters wanted real Colts and they couldn’t get them, but Great Western stepped in to fill the void. That article in GUNS was about Great Westerns. The Great Western looked so much like a Colt Single Action Army that they actually used real Colts in the early advertising. I’m not sure exactly when Great Western began, but I think I saw the first ads in 1954 when I was a junior in high school. They were smart enough to present John Wayne with an early matched pair, fully-engraved with ivory grips. One of the owners of the company was Audie Murphy. Young Murphy lied about his age to get into World War II, became the most decorated hero of that conflict, and then went on to make Western movies. Some thought that he wasn’t much of an actor, but we didn’t care. He was a real genuine hero who could definitely handle a Colt Single Action .45 on the silver screen." Taffin has written a few articles about Murphy in both Guns and American Handgunner, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stick a notice over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Requesting input regarding sourcing about this. It's a nice article. However, where did John Taffin get his information? You know what I mean? The most decorated foot soldier of WWII was a part owner, and it's mentioned here almost as an after thought in this article.. And you almost don't find mention of this anywhere else. I haven't run across it over at The Audie Murphy Memorial Site, which his own son is affiliated with. Must be more to this, hopefully. It just seems to me that somewhere out there should be some documented evidence of Audie actually being part owner of this company. There had to be legal documents filed for him to be an owner, some kind of trail besides this mention. It might be true, but Taffin doesn't cite his source, so the mention has a question mark over it. But rather than rely on my perception of that source. I'm posting at Military History, because they're the next step up in the review. Let's see what they say. — Maile (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I can ask him. He's a former history teacher and museum curator. He's also a very prolific gun writer with monthly columns in at least 3 magazines going back 3 decades as well as the author of at least 7 books (he's not some loser writing for free on the interwebz). The article was about GWA, though, not Murphy. Keep in mind, too, that Great Western was not like a modern multi million dollar venture. They were started on a $250,000 investment and they went under in about 10 years.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. It might be a few hours before anyone at Military History responds. A lot of those members are scattered hither and yon in multiple time zones. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found this on the Memorial site [1]. Great Western was founded later that year and Heywood Hunter, who is mentioned in the article, ran a large gun shop in Burbank that was to be the major distribution arm for the company and their gateway into films. It doesn't mention Murphy's involvement beyond that he thought it was a good idea and was friends with Hy, but it's a step closer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a start, but it still doesn't place him as part owner of the future company. Audie sometimes had a pattern of mentioning plans to develop "this and that" big projects, and eventually for whatever reasons, the ideas/plans never bore fruition. But good detective work here, and it's a lead. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure, a lot of people have that dilemma when they reach a certain level of fame. Still, when I saw Hy Hunter mentioned in there I found it,interesting. I have emails out to Taffin and to an author of the definitive book about GWA. If I don't hear back I may email or call Sweeney (author of the book used as a source currently) we write for the same company. I found an older piece by Taffin in a magazine where he said Audie was "reported to be a partner", however in his later writings he says that "he was a partner". He was definitely in the company's advertisements and was a spokesman from 54 to about 61; you can pull up pics of old brochures, etc. We'll figure it out one way or another.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll pull it until we get something definitive. I have doubts now and do not want to screw this article up for FA.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating information. My one concern about this being in the article, even if he was some sort of partner, is how prominently the information is displayed in the Finances section. It makes it seem as if this was a huge source of income for Murphy or at least a very important part of his business affairs, when in reality it may have been more of an interesting sidenote if anything. Looking forward to seeing what you both dig up. Roam41 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I heard back from both JT and the other author. Murphy was friends with Hy Hunter who was the marketing side and he heavily used Murphy's photos in his ad campaign. So much so that it started as an urban legend that he was a partner in the company and Hunter was not the type to dissuade this line of thinking if it increased sales. There has been no demonstration that Murphy ever had an equity stake in the company, but Hunter's brochures circulated well and cemented Murphy's place there in the permanent conversational narrative. So it looks like Taffin's pre-2011 articles and books as well as Sweeney's were going off of bum scoop. If I wanted to be a dick I could pull the "these sources say it so we have to include it because wiki does not care about the truth" card, but I won't. I have no stake in it and do not want it to make this article less than accurate. As to any insinuation that it was placed prominently to denote a huge source of income, that was never the case. This article resembled a huge bag of ass when that information was placed in it and that was probably the only area where it seemed to fit. I'm glad I learned the truth and I am actually going to use it as the subject of an article next week: "Debunking the Great Western Arms-Audie Murphy Myth" in one of my columns.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mike Searson, I certainly have appreciated that you wanted to get to the truth as much as I have. And that you have been willing to dig around to find the truth of the matter. This subject matter has intrigued me since I first read it back in February, but I never could find anything. It's certainly been enlightenment for us both. I agree with you in that when this was first inserted, the article itself was not in great shape. It was tagged for various issues, and who knew what was what. My point of view on that section of Finances is that the section is scant on information. A piece here, a piece there. It wasn't my viewpoint that the GWA was anything more than one more piece. I don't even know how relevant that small section will be when this starts climbing closer to FA. Murphy's filing bankruptcy, and various tidbits I've read here and there, indicate that there is a much larger story on his finances. His gambling addiction, and how it ruined his finances, was epic. But on a point by point basis, it's hard to document. It's hinted at in the FBI file on him, but I've only seen bits and pieces of the file. We can document that his widow was forced to get a job to pay off his debts. But the rest of it doesn't seem to be out there. If you run across anything in the future that could flesh out that section, please feel free to contribute to it. But, boy, this talk thread has somewhat illustrated what I said earlier up there about the Hugh O'Brien challenge - sometimes it's hard to sort truth from fiction. One assumes Murphy did not publicly deny an actual partnership in his friend's GWA company, just as he didn't bother to deny a lot of other things when he was alive. Murphy made some noise about the various things he was asked to do for publicity in his career, but photographic evidence shows he went along with things he thought were ill advised. Thank you for all your efforts on this, Mike. — Maile (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the important thing here is Audie's story.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

typo error in reference 81

In reference 81 Murphy is referenced as 2dn Lt. I believe that it should be 2nd Lt. I do not know how to correct this error. Would some one please make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.158.237 (talk • contribs)

 Done Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Questionable Sources

I changed the source for the quote “...they took army dogs and rehabilitated them..." The reference listed was a supermarket tabloid called Weekly World News. The article on Murphy was not overly sensationalized, but the rest of the paper was. It seemed the original 1960 Bob Thomas article (via Associated Press) was the better choice.

Also wanted to bring up the book in footnote #162, These Movies Won No Hollywood Awards. Lulu.com deals only in self published works. I wonder if a better source could be found? I didn’t change it, but because this book is self published it may be considered less than reliable.

Footnote #185 seems incomplete to me. It shows “Audie Murphy’s Aero Commander 680” and an access date, but nothing else. Shouldn’t there be more information than that? I don’t understand this source. Does anyone else? Roam41 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's good you've been going through this and looking at the sources. Keep up the good work. I'll see if I can find a better source for #162. Maybe that won't be hard, since it's just referencing the origins of Destry. #185 was leftover from before we cleaned this up for the GA, a one-time edit by an IP address June 5, 2010 Although, the source it originally pointed to seems iffy to me. Maybe we can dig up better sourcing for Murphy's death crash. — Maile (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've taken care of both of these now. Thanks for pointing them out. — Maile (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, it looks good to me. I noticed you used the newspaper url this time. I haven't been putting them in because I was trying to copy the format you seemed to prefer. Should I go back and add them? I know there was an issue with the length of the article, so I wasn't sure. Roam41 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't go back and add them. I inserted the url out of habit, and mostly so you could see the source. I need to go through and still standardize this, and your viewpoint is certainly welcome on the subject. The ultimate goal is FA. This article is already of considerable size, and the Filmography and Honors-Awards were given their own page for that. Not all user systems can accommodate large pages. When I decided to remove the urls back on March 11, 2013, it removed 3,465 bytes from the existing 89,279 bytes. I thought that was considerable. A bigger decrease in size of 7,129 bytes occurred by the reverting of questionable content. The urls are helpful when somebody questions the source. Not all of the sourcing is online and has urls. But on the other hand, the urls add size to the article. Your thoughts are welcome. — Maile (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Dial Henley repeated insertion and reverts

I have just reverted a redlink editor who once again re-inserted a folksy Huck-Finn-Tom-Sawyer like story about Murphy's alleged hunting companion in his youth. It's unsourced and unencyclopedic, and will not help this article rise to A-rating or FA. Multiple times over multiple years, this story has been inserted identically word-for-word by unregistered users (perhaps one individual under different guises), reverted, and the reverts have been reverted by unregistered users, again and again. This seems to me like disruptive edits by one individual under different guises. In any event, enough with the crap. — Maile (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The last time this folk tale was removed prior to today's insertion was Feb 21, 2013 article clean up by Maile66 during Peer Review period, in preparation for GA review. — Maile (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

Maile66, you've done a great job on this article. I want to bring up one correction and I will leave it up to you whether or not to change anything. Audie Murphy never actually declared bankruptcy, although he most certainly was on the verge of doing so and faced very serious financial problems. Unfortunately, you will find in print everywhere that he actually went through with it. Since this completely complies with Wikipedia’s rules on sourcing, you would be justified in leaving the article just as it is. However, your search for the truth in the Western Arms Co. issue made me think you might want to know this information. The book Audie Murphy, American Soldier by Harold Simpson states he did not declare bankruptcy on page 282. It is also confirmed on page 307 of No Name on the Bullet. Don Graham was one of the few biographers who actually checked court records, so if a bankruptcy had been filed, he would have reported it. Roam41 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the chance to get this accurate, and it was changed appropriately eliminating the bankruptcy filing. I don't have the Simpson book, but I do have the Graham book on hand and have sourced the change with that one. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Highest earning film claim

Maile, Congratulations on the A-class rating. Bear with me on this, but I have one more issue for you to consider. You may decide to leave it unchanged, but I think the subject should at least be noted here in the Talk section. It is regarding the claim that To Hell and Back was the highest grossing Universal film until the release of Jaws. I have seen this fact repeated in books, newspapers and on the Murphy Website. You have two sources listed on the main page supporting it, so there is plenty of justification to leave it in. However, the claim is just not true. I have no idea where this myth began. It’s not mentioned in either the Graham or Simpson books or in any histories of Universal. In fact, prior to the 1990s the idea doesn't seem to exist at all. These sources never list any actual figures because no one has ever taken the time to check them. Graham (pg 250) and Simpson (pg 275) agree the movie brought in about 10 million dollars gross. According to Variety sourced on this page, 6 million of that total was from domestic rentals. Quite a few Universal films prior to 1970 earned much more, most notably Spartacus (1960), Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967), That Touch of Mink (1962) and Shenandoah (1965). The studio box office record smashed by Jaws in 1975 was actually the one previously held by The Sting (1973) at 80 million dollars domestic. See "highest grossing" mentions here, here, here, here and here.

It’s not my intention to take anything away from To Hell and Back. It was a huge hit and became the most successful film in Universal’s history at the time of release. It most certainly remained in their top 20 until the advent of blockbusters like Airport (1970), The Sting (1973), Earthquake (1974) and Jaws (1975). It just wasn’t in the number one spot. Actually, I’m guessing it probably ranked somewhere between 10 and 20. If adjusted for increasing ticket prices and inflation, the place might be even higher. I wouldn’t mind being wrong about this, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I’m really surprised no one has questioned this before. Roam41 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a minor thing to remove such an erroneous statement both on this article and on Audie Murphy filmography. I have seen the statement about To Hell and Back in just everything I've ever read about that movie. But sources you have provided here seem good, and it's better to be accurate. Go ahead and make the necessary edits to this on both articles if you like. Thank you so much for your detailed eye on this. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You’re so right. This idea is in just about everything you read about the movie (as long as the source was written after 1990). That’s why I was concerned it wasn’t a minor edit and wanted to check with you first. It’s also why I felt compelled to put so many sources in my post. Thanks for being so open to reviewing all the facts. Roam41 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, just keep scanning your eagle eyes over this article. The more we catch now, the less there is to deal with when we take it to FAC. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Texas Legislative Medal of Honor

For those who have noticed the constant attention and efforts of Audiesdad (talk · contribs) to this issue, Governor Rick Perry has now signed the legislation to award to Audie Murphy the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor. It has been appropriately listed on Audie Murphy honors and awards, subsection State of Texas proclamations. You may read the story about this at today's Greenville, Texas Herald Banner. Audiesdad has been the foremost proponent for this honor, both on this main article, the AM honors and awards page, and at the Audie Murphy Research Foundation message board. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This article on YouTube

I don't know who has done this, but an oral version of this article, as it existed on June 11, 2013, has been posted on YouTube — Maile (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, shame the diction of the text-to-speech software used is unbearable to listen to.. "World War Second" (groan) and it's way too fast for comfortable and easy listening. But the point I wanted to make is, if you want a genuine speech recording of the article, local to Wiki, you can make a request at WP:Spoken articles, where someone who is interested may record their own voice and upload it. Though, if you're going to be making a lot of changes yet, for FAC level, I'd wait until that is done and the article becomes stable again, otherwise any recording made now will quickly become outdated, you want a version that is highly stable and unlikely to be subject to anything more than minor tweaks. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You've provided good information. I never even thought of making a request to WP Spoken articles. You're correct - it should wait until the FAC process has happened. The YouTube one sounds like R2D2 or some sci-fi robot. And because it skips over the block quotes, it says things like: "The official U.S. Army citation for Murphy's Medal of Honor reads:post-war military service." Half of that is in the American male voice, and the section heading part is a British female. Besides which, the A-class review necessitated a complete overhaul in the military action sections. The YouTube pre-review version is embarrassingly inaccurate in many aspects I never knew about until the review. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who is making those videos, as they've done a hefty amount. I suspect it was done by someone who sought to "profit" from the idea, hoping that YouTube would partner their videos with advertising so they could make money from it. But their view count is way too low, most have less than 100 views, and the account holder doesn't seem to have persisted with the project for a month. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Soldiers Medal

NOTE: Below message copied from my talk page. There has been ongoing edits over this issue in the awards and honors section. This posting is in response to a query I made at the WP Military History project. Prior to this, I believe I have already resolved the wording issue, sourcing it with a large footnote from the same source mentioned here. However, I believe this editor provides some information that might be of interest here. — Maile (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Maille: I assume that you are not American, (no problem there) and hence your question about the Soldier's Medal and wanting to get it right. As a historian and long time service member let me see if I can offer some insight into this matter. I refer you to AR 600-8-2 Section 3-14. There is a distinct difference in the term "valor" and "heroism in the American military vernacular. Here is the authoritative quote from the regulation pertaining to the award. "at the time of the heroic act, who distinguished himself or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. The same degree of heroism is required as that of the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross. The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. I think the key words are "heroism" and "not involving armed conflict." There is a distinct difference between "armed conflict" as in the other valor awards and "not involving armed conflict." In addition, it is seldom awarded (although it can be) in a combat theater. The vast majority of the awards are made in peacetime and I concur with the other poster who acknowledged "life saving." The Soldier's Medal is typically awarded for acts of heroism involving "saving of life" and although the medal in itself does not necessitate the "saving of life" it usually involves cases where a military member saves someone from a car crash, a burning home, or a helicopter crash as in the case of General Colin Powell when he was awarded the Soldier's Medal in Vietnam and "not under fire or engaged" from an opposing military force at the time of the deed. As I earlier stated there is a distinct difference between acts of valor involving armed conflict with the enemy and of heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy. That distinction is made as valor would necessitate an opposing force whereas heroism does not necessarily require an opposing force. As an example, a sports figure may be referred to as a "hero" but his acts on the field are not referred to as valorous, likewise for a firefighter, etc. That is the reason the award criteria as outlined in Army regulation 600-8-22 does not mention the word "valor" but rather the word "heroism" when referring to the Soldier's Medal. In addition I am attaching a link to the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry, which governs such Army awards and would consider the Institute as an unimpeachable source of knowledge with respect to this issue. This particular link is for the Soldier's Medal and outlines the award inception and criteria. The Soldier's Medal as depicted has the inscription on the rear "for Valor" but it is not actually valor award but rather a heroism award. When reviewing 600-8-22 please make specific note that the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star. They all reflect the phrase "engaged in action" or words to that effect. Additionally, the Bronze Star if awarded for valor makes specific reference in section 3-15 (b) of the phrase "against an armed enemy". In the cases of the awards outlined in the preceding paragraph, all instances refer to "armed conflict". The Soldier's Medal makes no such provision and can only be awarded for "heroism not involving armed conflict". I apologize for being so long-winded and repetitive to some extent in my response but as you know I am new to wiki and it is a bit confusing. In conclusion, as the Army only awards a handful (in todays Army less than 100 on average) Soldier's Medals per year and the fact that one would have to be by happenstance in the right place at the right time, and under the right "civilian" conditions, I think that this subject should be removed and left removed from the subject of Audie Murphy, albeit that you or someone might have to continually correct the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audiesdad (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a Texas American. But details on medals is not my strong suit in editing. I believe if you look at the appropriate section on the Audie Murphy page, and my recent sourcing, I have resolved it for that article. I have posted your above reply on that article's talk page, because I think the information you have provided is useful. — Maile (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know you are a Texan! Thanks for adding the commentary to the talk page. Hope it hekps to define and resolve the issue in the future.--Audiesdad (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Soldier's Medal ("FOR VALOR" on back) is a military decoration Murphy did not receive during WWII (in or not in a combat area) or during his entire service period (includes Korean War period). Other soldiers did receive the Soldier's Medal during WWII (and Korea) and some soldiers received it posthumously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.142.2 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We already know that. Nobody is claiming Murphy received it. And it's not being debated that he got it. We know he didn't. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)