Talk:Audie Murphy/Archive 1

Most decorated?
Are we certain that he is the Most Decorated? I was under the impression that Sgt Llewellyn Chilson was the most decorated, but not as famous due to the fact he never received the MoH. Can we get some research on this? Stephanie 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My references are miscellaneous websites, but there is such a lack of information on him. Regardless, my references upon searching are:

http://www.cprofota.com/army.html A personal webpage

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3421316.html Cited from the history channel documentary

http://www.45thdivision.org/Veterans/Chilson.htm Another personal webpage

I'm pretty sure Murphy at the time was the most decorated, I don't know much about Chilson but according to your links the medals break down as follows: Dist. Service Cross (3 for Chilson 1 for Murphy) Legion of Merit 1 each Silver Stars 2 each Bronze Star  (1 for Chilson and  2 for Murphy) Also Murphy had the MOH, so they are at 7 valor awards each, not counting Murphy's medals from other countries and purple hearts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.183.222 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most decorated soldier in US history be one of the people with two Medals of Honor? Does one MoH outrank any number of the lower awards? Does two MoH's outrank one MoH plus any number of lower awards?

Also, Douglas MacArthur has an MoH and a distinguished Service Cross (with two oak leaf clusters- 3 awards of the DSC). Wouldn't that count as more highly decorated than Audie Murphy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.200.220 (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because the word is "most [period]" and the primary point is simply quantity, not level of honor. The latter is being used only as a tie-breaker between Murphy and Chilson, so MacArthur isn't in the running. Ted Watson (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "It has been said that he received every US medal available at the time; 5 of them awarded more than once." It has also been said that if you follow the rainbow to its end, the little green person will give you a pot of gold. Without a citation proving this, it's dubious, especially since, including campaign medals, Lt. Murphy would have had to fight in every campaign in every theatre during the entire duration of the war. Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

In any case people should focus more on who was the most highly decorated soldier, rather than merely the most medals. As far as military medals go(such as the Medal of Honor and the VC), it is often much more important(especially at higher award levels) to have one of the highest decorations than to have 10 of the lower ones. In the British system, a VC winner outranks(and is considered more highly decorated) than another soldier with *any* number of lower awards. You are assuming the term "most decorated" can mean the most number of medals, but some people would consider the standard of "most decorated" to be MOH's first, then no. of DSC's etc. You could maybe call Murphy the "most often decorated", but it's still not as important a concept as who was the most highly decorated soldier of WW2. It's misleading to call Murphy the most decorated soldier of WW2- it doesn't really take into account how the medal system is supposed to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.180.246 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 April 2009

There are different ways to calculate "most decorated" and it's exacerbated by the fact that some awards are delayed by decades, see Matt Urban. Murphy or Urban is the most decorated of WWII. Murphy did have every combat award of his era, though of course he couldn't get every campaign/theater ribbon of WWII. — Rlevse • Talk  • 03:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I digress! Matt Urban is not the most decorated soldier of WW2. Urban did not receive the French Legion of Honor or the American Distinguished Service Cross. Please know that my attempt here is NOT to denigrate the military achievements of Colonel Urban or to insult his family. There's no doubt that in having the Medal of Honor, Colonel Urban was a hero, and, indeed, America should remember all her heroes and the price they paid. There are so many recipients more decorated and higher decorated than Colonel Urban. He simply does not belong in the classifications his proponents or the media assign him. He is NOT the “Most Decorated Soldier of WWII”, nor is he the “Most Decorated in American History” — or any variation of the above.

Audie is quantitatively and qualitatively more highly decorated than Colonel Matt Urban, who has 29 awards; his service medals and their appropriate devices are NOT for bravery. Audie has 34 awards, including the Distinguished Service Cross, our second highest medal for valor, which Colonel Urban lacks. Audie also has the higher French award: the Legion of Honor (Chevalier). Audie’s Marksman and Expert Badges are not military awards, per se; they are qualification badges, and therefore not included in the tally.

Here are Audie’s OFFICAL AWARDS:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL AND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL CENTER WASINGTON, D.C. 20314 7SEP 1979

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

SUBJECT: MAJ AUDIE MURPHY - Authorization for Awards and Decoration

LIST OF AWARDS

Medal of Honor Distinguished Service Cross Silver Star with First Oak Leaf Cluster Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device and First Oak Leaf Cluster Purple Heart with Second Oak Leaf Cluster Good Conduct Medal Distinguished Unit Emblem with First Oak Leaf Cluster American Campaign Medal European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine Campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp Armed Forces Reserve Medal Combat Infantryman Badge Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star French Croix de Guerre with Palm Medal of Liberated France Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

There simply is no cutoff point in assigning titles or classifications; it is a personal matter. The Department of the Army refuses to participate in such debates. Army spokeswoman Martha Rudd commented that, “The military does not rank soldiers by numbers or types of medals awarded.”

Carol Cepregi with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society states, “It is not possible to say who is the nation's most decorated soldier,” and adds that “medals are of varying weight and significance and are awarded under differing circumstances.”

The people who decide such unofficial titles are researchers and proponents of a particular individual, whereby inadequate research is oftentimes conducted and conclusions unjustly made.

Someone recently mentioned to me that there would NEVER be another Audie Murphy and I believe this to be partially correct.

Perhaps when Audie received his Medal of Honor on June 2, 1945, he was the most decorated soldier of WWII. I cannot confirm that this is still a true statement today, and I take the position that he was one of the most - and highest-decorated of WWII. I know of no WWII infantryman more decorated and there is definitely none more celebrated.

World War II was a supported war. America knew she must prevent expansion of the Nazi empire. She also realized that she must take action to further prevent massacre and tyranny, such as Germany’s resolve to eradication the Jewish people. And tactically, America had to stop the Nazi overthrow of England. Thus, through the carnage of war, Audie Murphy, the hero, was born.

Vietnam and Korea were not popular wars, but there were many heroes, far more - and highly - decorated than Audie, who came forth and displayed their mettle. But they lacked the notoriety, fame, and news coverage that accompanied Audie’s heroic deeds, and followed him throughout the remainder of his life. In that sense, there will never be another Audie Murphy.

Colonel Urban does not even come close to the following individuals:

The one individual who is the "Highest and Most" from the Vietnam War is Colonel Robert Lewis Howard. Colonel Howard has, including the Medal of Honor and other valor and non-valor awards, plus all the appropriate devices, a total of 89 awards. This listing includes 2 Distinguished Service Crosses; 4 Legions of Merit and 8 Purple Hearts.

Colonel George “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.)(POW) Vietnam, has 79 medals and devices, which includes the Medal of Honor, Air Force Cross (same as Army DSC), and the Distinguished Service Medal, which takes precedence over the Silver Star (which he also has).

Also noteworthy is Vice Admiral John D. Bulkeley USN, who, in addition to the Medal of Honor has THREE Distinguished Service Crosses and THREE Distinguished Service Medals.

I must also mention Eddie Rickenbacker, WWI, who has the Medal of Honor and SEVEN Distinguished Service Crosses. Originally he had eight, but one was upgraded to the Medal of Honor in 1930. He has the quality but not the quantity.

Regulations now restrict and allow for only one Medal of Honor. If one excludes the 19 DOUBLE Medal of Honor recipients from the Civil through World War I, then the title of "Most and Highest Decorated Soldier in American History" belongs to General Douglas MacArthur. He has the most medaled chest of any combatant in American history with a total of 114 awards. This includes the Medal of Honor, 3 Distinguished Service Crosses and 7 Silver Stars. Yes, many of his awards were because he was General of The Army but our top THREE valor awards cannot be ignored.

Oftentimes, the layperson assumes "Most" means "Highest" and this is not correct. Highest, as the word coveys, is a qualitative reference. With regards to US military decorations, this includes the Congressional Medal of Honor. The use of "Most" is a quantitative reference. In this respect, excluding General MacArthur, Colonel David Hackworth, USA (Ret.) has the numbers. Counting all his medals, valor and non-valor, and all the appropriate devices, he has 89! However, he lacks the Medal of Honor.

There are those who attempt to control titles and conclusions by altering the criteria. For example, limiting it to the top three valor awards (Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star); the time frame (i.e., WWII, Korea, Vietnam); branch of service; or deciding whether foreign awards should be included in the criteria, and then, what values they equate to in the American awards. Part of the difficulty in limiting it to a specific war is the fact than many recipients served in two or more wars. A researcher would need a valid database and a computer to separate the time frames. All of these factors can alter conclusions.

Doug Sterner, Director of the Hall of Heroes Museum in Pueblo, Colorado, stated, "Some individuals may have many rows or ribbons or numerous medals, all of which may be quite low in the PYRAMID OF HONOR. A quantity of medals does not necessarily indicate someone who has seen combat, but may in fact simply denote an individual with many years of service, and many overseas deployments. However, that the sight of multiple rows of medals are generally perceived by the public, who may not recognize the ribbons as being ordinary decorations presented for good conduct or service, and think they are seeing a great hero."

That being said, when one compares Audie Murphy to Matt Urban, Audie continues to reign as the Most-Decorated Soldier of World War II. (Audiesdad (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

The preponderance of data submitted would seem to uphold the accuracy of describing AM as The Most Decorated Soldier of WWII and I am not sure that we should quibble--considering,additionally, that the awarding of medals is generally biased in favor of those holding officer's rank. Or,perhaps AM's appellation should be Most Signifcantly Decorated Soldier of WW II.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.84.14 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Height
"Although only 5'5" tall, Audie Murphy fought in World War II with such courage..." Doesn´t this imply that you´re unlikely to be courageous if you´re short? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * No. He was rejected by the Marine Corp for being too small.  What it says is that even though Murphy wasn't a large man, he was a great man. Stargoat 00:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that should be made more pronounced than it currently is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

He was also denied enlistment into the airborne infantry as unfit for the combat requirements deemed necessary and essential for airborne duty due to his physical size.


 * Smacks of PC dead white male bashing to me. According to the standards of his time... coupled with the body size requirements of other services could be added to spoon feed it to today's crop of hyperreactionary yak puppets. Plus, during WWII the measure of a man's "output" was important for company commanders, who still had to rely chiefly on the bulk ability of individual soldiers to fight wars.Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

Broken link
Can someone check the link to Medal of Liberated France? When I click on it from Audie Murphy's list of medals, it goes straight into the "Edit" page and does not redirect to the proper article. Perhaps a bug? User:Husnock 9 Jul 2004

Add description of actions
Can someone maybe add to this what exactly Murphy did to earn all his medals and decorations? I think I remember reading it somewhere, and it would add alot to the article. Maybe I'll look into it if no one else does, but it's be better to have someone more familiar with the subject write it. -R. fiend 06:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced statement
I deleted "He was also accused of being a pedophile." I could find nothing on Google which supports this accusation, and I asked the poster to verify it, but they did not reply. John Barleycorn 18:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Death site edit
A year or so ago, this site erroneously stated his fatal crash was near Norfolk. I changed it to "near Roanoke". Someone later edited that it was "near Galax, outside of Roanoke" (paraphrased).

Audie's plane did not go down near Galax. Rather, it was near Catawba. The site is *near* 37.351°N, 80.251°W (not exact!), within a mile of the Craig, Roanoke, and Montgomery County junction. Galax is about 60 miles away.

I also added the mountain's name - Brush Mountain. Appalachian's mountains are really mountain ridges, and names are often given to an entire ridge as opposed to specific peaks. This is the case for Brush Mountian.

I have seen one mention (http://www.roanoke.com/outdoors/hiking/1143.html) that the plane was en route to Martinsville, Virginia, but could not verify this. The story in the link is about hiking, not specifically Audie's death or its circumstances, thus I am skeptical of the fact-checking in that article.

see also http://www.audiemurphy.com/roanoke.htm

While I was at it, I added that there was a marker near the crash site. I used the above external link as well. I felt that this was more of a "Death" category mention instead of a "Honors" category mention. July 31, 2005 7PM EDT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.140.106 (talk)

Rumors of Murphy's behavior
I had also heard a rumor about AM being a pedophile, but when I went to look into it I couldn't find anything of the sort. Until I really get a gritty biography of the man, I'd say it's probably a VERY twisted misinterpretation/ rumor without basis. I did find that he had had a couple of assault charges, I imagine during the period he was struggling with PTSD. The page also went on to make the statement that being trained and experienced as a combatant had effect on his behavior outside of the military. I don't have the link handy unfortunately. November 26, 2005 8PM C (+3 GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.196.22 (talk)


 * Such allegations about someone needs to be researched, cited by some substantial source. Make sure it's not some funky Web site proclaiming that it has the "truth". --speedoflight | talk to me 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Another example of the Gay Lobby in action. This can be found throughout Wikipedia. Yes, they want to insinuate that every prominant person was gay, thereby legitimizing unnatural behavior.Lestrade 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Lestrade


 * Another example of Bigotry in action. Homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT interchangeable, or even related, terms.165.176.123.2 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are interchangeable. If you are a man who likes little boys, you are gay. No doubt about it. Audie Murphy was not one of these men, he is a national hero who shouldn't be slandered so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.2 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's moronic. If you are a man who likes little girls, you are not heterosexual. No doubt about it. Your a pedophile. Audie Murphy is a natinal hero who shouldn't be slandered.75.9.45.148 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Elsa Lanchester's autobiography stated that husband Charles Laughton had "boys" brought to him, yet she is invariably reported to have revealed his homosexuality. Admittedly, the victim of a pedophile can be a girl as easily as a boy. Nevertheless, in Laughton's case the two have been equated, and undoubtedly for the reason Lestrade gave. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 17-June-2007: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - I would advise 3 independent (obviously independent) sources for claims of extreme behavior. Wikipedia has enough reliability issues without being viewed as "Enquirer-opedia" because vandalism has been lasting 3-to-7 months in some articles.  I saw notes about AM carrying a gun to film sets, but just in one source, and anyway, that invites troublesome edits to the main article.  Perhaps the best way to limit problems is to spin-off an "Audie Murphy controversies" article to keep sensational edits away from verification of the larger main article.  A similar approach created "Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code" which has grown to over 30 sections, and that book was fiction, not one of the most famous REAL war heroes of recent history.  I strongly advise using a separate article, as I undo hidden vandalism almost daily.  Someone hacked that AM dropped out in "5th grade" which makes no sense when hearing him speak in films, so I checked the sources and restored "eighth grade" after a 6-week botch.  Vandalism is a major problem: separating articles could help.  -Wikid77 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember people said everything was in the "pejorative sense" after watching Homer Simpson pick gummy off the wrong hyperreactionary yak puppet's butt? Someone likely mistook his affection for the Italian in THAB, whose age was unmentioned, at a time Murphy himself was underage, for some kind of improper relationship. People who watch TV come to believe a lot of stupid things.Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

"Recipient", not "winner"
"the tombstones of Medal of Honor winners" -- I keep seeing this all over this reference site. You do not "win" the Medal of Honor! Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, Cost Guardsmen, and in one known case a civilian, are "recipients" of this award. This, in all actuallity, is how all awards or decorations should be referred to. 68.100.161.83 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed URL
changed URL for trivia about 'to hell and back' from reference to rock album of the same name back to correct reference - andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.148.102 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
We may agree with this, but it's very POV:

"One also must question Eisenhower's authority to make such a statement, since he never served in combat himself." Brainhell 03:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a reference to Audie Murphy being awarded three Purple Hearts, and a parenthetical saying they were genuine. Is there a presumption that Purple Heart's aren't genuine? Perhaps the parenthetical should be removed unless there's evidence to suggest there is controversy as to the authenticity of his injuries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicofjosh01 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Added info on parents
Added some information on Murphy's mom and dad, L.J. Brooks 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rank
What for rank he have? Murderman 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He went up through the ranks, from private to the commissioned rank of 1st lieutenant at the end of World War II and major during later National Guard service.--Buckboard 10:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Amused
well, he was a high mason - anyone have a theoretical view of why his plane crashed? (ANY time a plane crash is the cause of a death of someone famous - i'm reminded that congress has the highest mortality rate of any profession - usually from plane crashes)

my research is masonry... and for good reason. you watch 'the Legend of Zoro'? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.213.37 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hesitantly commenting here only so any weak-minded individuals who forgot to wear their tinfoil fedorae won't get any kook ideas, I believe it would be difficult from a point of scholarship to associate Lt. Murphy's death with an anti-Congress conspiracy, which reveals itself in any movie starring Antonio Banderas and/or Catherine Jones. I do agree Congress has a high mortality rate, however, as everyone elected to Congress eventually dies. Come to think of it, so do their families, aides, and constitutents. Warn the world, brave knight! Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

Copied
Some of this is copied from another page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.12.188 (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 17-June-2007: A year later, I also saw several word-for-word phrases, and have been paraphrasing those sections. -Wikid77 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has no sources
I don't see much references/sources. So I have added a unsourced tag at the top as well as one for original research. ResurgamII 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added several links to other wikipedia pages, but have noticed there is no standard on CMH references in wikipedia. Since they generally have the same format, should there be a uniform format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autkm (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 September 2006


 * It needs references and not just links to other articles or web sites. Surely there must be some published references that can be added. What parts do you consider original research? Is it the parts with weasel words? Someone should really work on getting this article untagged. Remember that tags are meant as an encouragement, not something permanent. MartinDK 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10-June-2007: Although 7 months have passed, on June 9, I began adding 120 footnote references for several independent sources (not Wikipedia mirror feeds). Most of those 120+ facts were verified, except had to fix dropping out in "eighth grade" (95% of sources, but said "fifth grade" as changed/vandalized on 25Apr07).  I moved the cleanup/OR tags, but the #1 footnote might verify most of the potential original-research issues about detailed battle actions and injuries (had 5 French medals).  Most sources confirmed Audie Murphy is the #2 man, after JFK, for visits to Arlington.  Also, I have re-added the deleted Army/Life images (with fair-use rationale), restoring the article to the good mid-April-2007 content, but strongly defended by sources now. -Wikid77 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be in pictures
I deleted this. The bio box already has a pic, with the Medal, so I don't see a particular need for another. File:Photo audiemurphy.jpg Trekphiler 14:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Medal of Honor
There is a difference between the Medal of Honor and the Congressional Medal of Honor. The article says he received the latter from the army, though in reality he received the former. Check the articles on the two awards for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.225.154 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is only one U.S. award with the title "Medal of Honor." It is often referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor because it is the only award that requires congressional oversight.  The award is only ever referred to as the Medal of Honor in military manuals and regulations.  All of these documents are open to the public and available for download if you want to check. PvtDeth 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Restored/defended
17-June-2007: The article in mid-2007 has been 99.9% accurate. During June 9-12, I added 120 footnote references from several independent sources (not Wikipedia mirror feeds). Most of those 120+ facts were verified, except had to fix dropout in "eighth grade" (per 95% of sources, but WP article had "fifth grade" as edited/vandalized on 25Apr07). I moved the cleanup/WP:OR tags, but the top footnote might verify most of the potential original-research issues about detailed battle actions and injuries (AM had 5 French medals). Most sources confirmed Audie Murphy is the #2 man, after JFK, for visits to Arlington cemetery. Also, I have re-added the deleted Army/Life images (with fair-use rationale), restoring the article to the accurate mid-April-2007 content + battle details, and also strongly defended by several sources now. -Wikid77 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 28-May-2008 Almost a year later, it looks like all the sections that have been flagged possible OR and needing citations have been well cited. I am going to go ahead and remove the header. Thanks for the work! Clegs (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Low importance?
17-June-2007: Note "This article has been rated LOW importance" (?) in Wikiprojects. What a shock, but some sources warned that people don't know him. At Arlington Natl cemetery, Murphy is #2 visited, after JFK. I recall him being the "poster boy" for shell-shock (PTSD), before "Vietnam baby killers" became a jaded phrase. Now we have military "Audie Murphy Clubs" (gee). My hunch, try: IMPORTANT or "VERY IMPORTANT" as the main man signifying "violence begets violence" and speaking about it, in defense of the next-generation of PTSD troops. Also, how do underfed teenagers win a war with little ammunition? I don't recall Murphy whining about going to war with "no bullets" but, let's get some perspective, and re-rank this article much higher. -Wikid77 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Audie Murphy represents an era of soldier which was largely gone by the time he saw action. WWI marked the end of "domination by elan" and historians who actually bother to study the first year and a half of it realise the bulk of the horrendous casualties came then, as armies were run into shell barrages and hung up on barbed wire for machine gun practice. When they finally entrenched, foolhardy raids made up the bulk of valiant actions. By WWII advances were generally more elaborate and impersonal, but the old "gung ho" spirit hadn't been trained out of soldiers yet, but was well on its way. Vietnam saw a victory for the mapmaker generals and today, you wait for the planes, artillery, cruise missiles, little tiny robot airborne missile launch platforms, international press, CNN and your grandmother to soften up positions before you're allowed to get within engagement distance. Too much "Audie Murphyism" gives guys ideas that robots are not trained to have.Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * Nice one, Doctor. The stories about MOH and VC winners of WW1 are all much the same. He stormed the enemy lines, leapt into the trench and bayoneted six Germans, threw bombs at the remainder who took flight or surrendered. 130 Germans were captured along with 36 machine guns, etc. etc. This secured the main point for the Brigade to carry on the next assault... blah blah blah... Naturally for every one of these heroes, another 500 were cut to ribbons. Wallie (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There were plenty of heroes in WWII who "dominated by elan". Check out Charles Upham for one - probably the most highly-decorated soldier in the allied forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.63.195 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter military awards
There should be one.--85.180.48.7 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Relative of Audie Murphy
My name is Jerry P. Stewart and the reason I'm writing this is because when Audie was killed in the plane crash in 1971, I was fighting in Vietnam. My Grandmothers maiden name was Murphy before she married. Her name was Violet Murphy and was one of Audie's cousins. He came to one of our family Christmas gatherings when I was very young, but I didn't know who he was at that time. My sister remembered him and still talks about that Christmas as a special time in her life, getting to meet him there. Anyway, to get to the point of my discussion, while I was in Vietnam I received a letter from a person who was doing a biography on Audie Murphy. In that letter he asked me to sign a release of some kind, asking for permission to include me, a relative who was in Vietnam fighting war when he died. Of course I said yes, not knowing how he found out I was there. I've, to this date, never found out if I was ever mentioned in any book. If anyone knows any information about this, I would appreciate it very much. I was 18 years old when I went to Vietnam, fought battles, received some metals, and also have been diagnosed with PTSD. I wasn't a hero like Audie, but I did everything I could just to stay alive. I was on, what they called a Duster Tank, (M42A1), which was one of the most deadliest weapons over there. We were called Duster Tanks because we seriously dusted anything we shot at. I was proud to have fought in the Vietnam war even though when I came home, we were called, " Baby Killers", instead of hero's. Everyday is a struggle to get through with my PTSD, so what I'm trying to say is I now know what Audie must have been going though. PTSD is real and very debilitating. 72.160.15.152 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great story, Jerry. You have every reason to be proud to have fought in Vietnam. It must have been wonderful to have met Audie. He was a great hero. I'm sure you fought bravely in Vietnam too, and I'm sure that Audie tried to stay alive too! Forget about taunts about "baby killers". These people have no idea how lucky they are that they have not faced the horrors of war. PTSD is a great problem, and it shamed me when I saw the film "Patton" about how he handled it. Patton was rightly reprimanded by his superiors over that unfortunate incident. Best of luck with your future and "stay proud". :) Wallie (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth
The year of Audie's birth, in both the infobox and the introductory passage, has been going back and forth between 1924 and 1925 lately. Note this statement in the sub-section "Enlistment": "In June 1942, shortly after his 17th birthday (sister Corinne adjusted his birthday so he appeared to be 18 and could legally enlist, and his war memoirs, To Hell and Back, maintained this misinformation, leading to later confusion and contradictory statements as to his year of birth), Murphy was accepted into the United States Army." Please do the math, and you'll see that this means he was born in 1925. Either Audie's ghostwriter Spec McClure didn't know any better, or Murphy was afraid he'd lose his veteran's benefits if the truth came out so soon after the war (I am not suggesting that any of that go into the article, mind you). As he is buried in the nation's number one military cemetery, the birth year in Department of Defense records, 1924, is what appears on his grave marker. I am going to put "1925" back in those two places. Either leave them alone, or challenge the passage quoted above as well. Ted Watson (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (I am not suggesting that any of that go into the article, mind you). As he is buried in the nation's number one military cemetery, the birth year in Department of Defense records, 1924, is what appears on his grave marker.--If it's true why wouldn't it go in the article because, as your reasoning puts it, he's buried in Arlington? Smacks of Wikiganda and is contrary to the cause of accuracy in scholarship.Coloneldoctor (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * Now someone has gone and changed Audie Murphy's birth year to 1926! Where does 1926 come in? That would make him 16 when he enlisted. His driver's license has 1925 and it's reproduced on page 10 of a document from the Audie Murphy Research Foundation (if they are a legitimate authority). Other websites have his birth year as 1925, and there seems to be a plausible story for that, as opposed to his military records and gravestone that show 1924. Gouveia2 (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "1926" comes from two documented facts. His sister is on the record that he was underaged and with her help lied about his year of birth when he enlisted, meaning the DOD record of 1924 is not correct (this is NOT synthesis; Corinne said in no uncertain terms that the Army was lied to on this point). The birth date of a sibling proves that Audie's mother could not have given birth to him on the month and day invariably given as his birthday (June 20) in the year 1925, but no such problem exists with the following year. As for your two objections: "That would make him 16 when he enlisted," proves nothing, as my father was 16 when he enlisted in 1946. "His driver's license has 1925." That previously mentioned sibling proves Audie could not have been born "6-20-1925" as that license says. Again, my father's driver's license showed his army lie year of birth for decades, until he moved to a new state and dealt with a new DMV. Note that Murphy's was issued less than a year before his death. The accompanying text states that "as far back as the mid-50s" Murphy admitted lying about his age upon his enlistment (a citable source that 1924 is wrong, BTW). He was a successful movie star then, and didn't need to worry about his veteran's benefits, which I suggested above motivated the DOD lie being maintained in "his" war memoirs. Still, he clearly did not admit just how much he had lied. Maybe stating "1926" as his year of birth does at least technically qualify as synthesis and we should not have a specific year of birth listed, but those are the only two options open to us, "1926" or nothing. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To anyone who feels the above to be b******t and insists on changing it to 1924 anyway, at least have the decency and sensibility to change it everywhere, not just in the infobox. The text says on several occasions that in such-and-such a year he was this age, all of which work out to his birth year being 1926. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, given that his book, his gravestone, and the monument at the site where he died all state the 1924 birth year, I recommend giving the year as 1924 as that's the year that's cited everywhere, by numerous sources, in situations where ample opportunity existed to correct the record if such was necessary. I'd further qualify it with the note that it may be incorrect, for the reasons already stated, but really, it would be better to cite one number and mention caveats than to be so incredibly inconsistent as it is now. 98.248.40.206 (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (EDIT: I made this comment when only logged in on the secure-site Wikipedia, hence the unintentional anonymity.  Stupid secure-server failure... Waldo (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

This article is "incredibly inconsistent" about this only when some idiot puts "1924" back in the infobox (and sometimes the intro) but—and this is where being an idiot comes in—leaves the rest of the references to Murphy's year of birth, to his age at a particular time, etc., elsewhere in the article intact. "1924" is documented to have been a lie and therefore should not be given here as his year of birth at all. Note, as mentioned and sourced above, the man himself was at the time of his death carrying a driver's license giving the year of his birth as 1925, not 1924. This is absolute proof positive that "1924" was untrue. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ted Watson is using chop logic. The sibling with the 1925 birthdate hardly proves that Murphy wasn't born that year, since if Murphy had his birth-year falsified in various records so could the sibling.  And if falsification did take place, it goes back to before Audie Murphy could ever have cared.  The 1930 U.S. Census lists Audie Murphy of Hunt County, Texas, as 6 years old, implying he was born in 1924.  It's standard genealogical practice to trust the earlier record, and given the census record I question whether Corinne and Audie truly knew the real facts about Audie's birth-year.  The sibling Watson claims was born in 1925 is, I presume, Richard Houston Murphy, but a family history compiled by Gary D. Murphy (http://www.audiemurphy.com/biograph.htm) gives Richard a birthyear of 1926, and that information is consistent with the 1930 census.
 * Contra Mr. Watson, I see only two options. 1924, which has government and very early census records in support of it, or 1925, which has his sister's implied support and Murphy's own driver's license.  1926 is out of ether, resting on no records and based on assumptions that are contradicted by other records. 69.108.12.52 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world would the other sibling falsify his birthdate? Corinne Murphy is, as I said before, flatly on the public record that the Army was lied to at the time of Audie's enlistment because he was too young to enlist, and the driver's license he was carrying at his death bearing a birth year of 1925 corroborates that much. No ifs, ands, or buts about it 1924 is a lie. This means that the census record is erroneous, perhaps a mere typo—for you to give it greater weight than Corinne and Audie is ridiculous. Why would she remember falsifying his birth year if there was no need to do so? I'll admit to taking somebody else's word about the sibling (I didn't even get the name or exact birthdate) and go along with 1925, but 1924 is out of the question, if only for that driver's license. My family's own genealogical research has found several instances of utter crap in census records, contradicted consistently by family Bibles, correspondence, signed photographic portraits, and personal documents (marriage licenses, for example). The census records do not have greater credibility than these things or the memories of the people involved. --Tbrittreid (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never suggested that anybody falsified the 1925 birthyear. I am saying that earlier records, when there would have been no motive to lie to get Audie Murphy into the Army, contradict what Corinne and Audie Murphy apparently believed later, which raises the question of whether they were in error.  The Murphy family history I cited earlier by Gary D. Murphy gives Audie a 6/20/1924 birthdate, as do other family trees like this one (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/a/l/l/Elizabeth-A-Allman/GENE5-0034.html) so there is clearly conflict among the Murphys unreflected in your own family's genealogical history.  (In my own experience, by the way, census information has proven quite accurate).  If you believe the census was a typo, then it escapes me why the driver's license itself couldn't also be a typo.  Is that the only evidence from Audie's end that conflicts with a 1924 birthyear?  Giving Audie a June 20, 1925 birthdate doesn't quite solve every problem, since according to Murphy family records his brother Richard was born February 16, 1926, giving less than eight months for his mother to give birth to Audie and then go through another pregnancy.  That's just possible, I suppose, but not very likely.  It's easier to believe that the date which was fudged for the Army was June 20.  Looking at all the records I cannot see how you are so confident that 1924 is false.


 * However, my main reason in posting was to object to 1926. I don't think it makes much difference whether 1924 or 1925 is selected.  If Corinne actually said, in quotes, that 1924 was the incorrect year of his birth, then I'll accede to you and accept 1925 as the date. 69.108.12.52 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, said above that I'd go along with 1925. You, however, seem intent on misrepresenting Corinne's position: She said in no uncertain terms that she helped Audie fake his birth year to get into the Army, meaning it isn't simply a matter of after-the-event understanding on her part. It doesn't matter whether her quote specifies any year; that she says that she helped her brother give the Army a false birth year because he was too young to enlist puts incorrect to the year on their records, 1924, whereby he would not have been under age. Why else would he have given 1925 as the year of his birth when taking out a driver's license (the one found on his body)? So we'll both go with 1925, right? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: In 1943, my father and his friend went down to enlist in the Navy. Both were 17 years old. My father was rejected due to poor eye sight, but his friend was taken. He had the permission of his father. My father's father would only agree for him to go into the Navy, as he was an Army vet who had been in the trenches of France in WWI and had seen combat (and been gassed) and my father was his only son. My grandfather had objected to my father wanting to join the Marines or the Army. My father was drafted in 1944 when he was 18 and was allowed to join the Navy. (He claims he cheated on the eye test. Then said that the Navy recruiter remembered him. The fact is, by 1944, the manpower needs meant they were hoovering up practically everyone, including old farts in their 40s.) Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, Audie Murphy could have joined at 17 if he had his parents' permission. So why fudge? Unless his parents didn't want him to go. Art Buchwald had a drunk sign his enlistment papers, posing as his father, and joined the Marines at 17 in 1942. His parents hadn't wanted him joining up.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

MURPHY looked too young (boyish) after he was discharged in 1945 to have been born in 1924. His sister had to sign for him to join (one parent was deceased and one left home). Some or many Texians did join the Army before age 17 before or during WW2. Murphy's Drivers License has a 1925 birthdate (given after his Army career). — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1930 U.S. Census lists Audie Murphy of Hunt County, Texas, as 6 years old, implying he was born in 1924. It's standard genealogical practice to trust the earlier record, and given the census record I question whether Corinne and Audie truly knew the real facts about Audie's birth-year.
 * This is quite compelling stuff. While the census is not 100% accurate, it is more accurate than any other source listed here. However, there is a serious caveat: the 1930 census began on April 1, 1930 and requested the age of the subject at his/her last birthday. Given that Murphy was born in June, this would technically mean that his June birthday would indicate a 1923 year of birth. I don't posit this seriously however. As I pointed out above, the census is not 100% accurate and a census taker asking a child's age on a farm in rural Texas could easily have just been given the child's age that year regardless of whether or not the birthday had come or not, or possibly a mistaken age. NOTE: There would be, however, no reason for Audie, his father, his elder sister or anyone else to have intentionally misstated Audie's age in 1930! 1923 is too early and would not have required any deception, and 1926, IMHO, is too late. So it's between 1924 and 1925 for me, probably the latter. This analysis is offered just to help fellow editors in their decision making regarding this issue. Yours, Quis separabit?  14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If his tombstone and other reliable sources say 1924, I don't see how we can argue with that based upon our own original research. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle with that. I haven't changed the year of birth. I hid text in the article that clearly conflicted with the 1924 year of birth, if you'll notice. I would almost always assume a gravestone year of birth is accurate, except in this case if the U.S. Army put up the stone, using information which his sister allegedly fabricated, then that would be an exception to my own above-referenced gravestone accuracy policy. Quis separabit?  22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think variations in census records are not uncommon. Census takers were sometimes hasty, or were given incorrect information. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The circular reasoning insisting upon a 1924 birth date is preposterous, specious even.

Why would Murphy have needed his sister to alter whatever record he was producing at enlistment offices if in fact he was 18 by that time?

He'd been producing something, which clearly indicated he was under 18 (and therefore *NOT* born in 1924).

That 1924 is on his tombstone reflects (evidently) the fabricated date submitted to the U.S. Army which then became their official record.

Why Murphy had 1925 on a post-War driver's license, or why supportably inaccurate information ended up in the 1930 Census (If he was 18 on his birthday in 1942 he would not have been rejected as underage.), is pure speculation. Assumedly he had 1925 because he no longer had any reason to maintain he had been born in 1924. Or, reasonably, that the date supporting it - at Texas DMV - had never been changed, if in fact he had used an altered copy of the paper document in his wallet to deceive enlistment authorities.

What, we must ask, form of official record (bearing a birthdate) did individuals possess in 1942? Very few in that era. Somewhere a birth certificate, at least on record at the county offices, and a driver's license (in an individual's possession, issued to Murphy before the U.S. was involved in WWII), commonly used and accepted as sufficient for establishing an individual's age, as it still is today for purposes of purchasing cigarettes and alcohol.

It's reasonable to impute that Corrine Murphy did not alter a birth certificate on file with the county or original record at Texas DMV, only a copy of either in Audie's possession.

It does not matter which (regardless if it is likely to have been his license, as generations of youths successfully tampered with to drink underage).

Whatever Murphy produced to finally get in - an altered birth certificate or altered driver's license - neither one would have had to have been altered had he been born in 1924.

What are we not getting about this simple fact?

Are we, distant Wikipedian's, to refute both the asserted actions and memories of Murphy and his sister regarding needing to fabricate his birth date to enlist?

This straightforward reasoning argues to change the date in the article's Intro from 1924 (to 1925, absent argument and evidence for a later year). I'm leaving it as is simply to spare myself the aggravation of having to come back here over and over again to keep changing it back.

I did, however, simply edit existing blanked out copy to restore it to the article, where is well belongs, indicating Audie and Corinne Murphy collaborated on changing the date on his ID to make him 18 in 1942, which they attest they did, and that confusion over the proper date has reigned ever since, which does.

Of course, why would they have had to alter whatever ID he had been producing to make him a year older if he was already 18 (from a 1924 birthdate)? They wouldn't, and he wasn't. Which brings us back to GO.

There is nothing in the restored copy that needs reverting or diluting as edited. If anyone wants to synthesize this Talk section into an article section on confusion over Murphy's birthdate, be my guest. But leave the edit as is. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Section: List of Decorations
There is a new section in the middle of the article, titled "List of Decorations." At first glance it looks like a section of text rather than a list, so reformatting is in order. But isn't what's in the infobox good enough already? --Ted Watson (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of awards shows the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. Reading the article, I don't see any association with the Reserve Components of the US Army after Murphy's discharge in 1945. In order to receive the AFRM, you have to be participating in an active Reserve status (a member of the Reserves or a Reservist on active duty) for ten years. No doubt Murphy is a highly decorated Soldier, but he shouldn't be shown receiving an award he has is not eligible to receive. I guess I am looking for consensus or proof. Meyerj (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS is a not a "List of Decorations" for Audie Murphy but is a list of military awards including decorations. Service (campaign) medals, Good Conduct Medals and Badges are not military "decorations" (Medal of Honor, DSC medal, SS medal...). Murphy's authorized awards were corrected and updated by the Army. Murphy is not entitled to the Army Occupation of Germany Medal on the list because he didn't fully meet the required 30 consecutive days on duty having been on leave part of the time in Germany. He also is not entitled to the French Liberation Medal award on the list (Legion of Honor holders cannot this medal by French Decree, Sept. 1948), see Wikipedia- French Liberation Medal, Eligibility.

THE ARTICLE AWARDS LIST OF RIBBONS inncorrectly decribes some ribbons (correct-Outstanding Civilian Service Medal), and is out of award precedence (correct-PUC below PH), and shows double ribbons (correct-French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star and Palm). Murphy was awarded three French Croix de Guerre's not two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website, Murphy served in the Texas National Guard from 14 July 1950 through 7 November 1966. On 8 November 1966, Murphy, by then a Major, transferred to the US Army reserves. This means that he was eligible for the Armed Forces Reserve Medal. But there is no mention on the website that he was officially awarded the AFRM.Gwhall57 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Audie Murphy Memorial Website
Recently(03June2009), user TheRedPenOfDoom added several verification needed tags to the article. I think a discussion should have taken place first, but based on the user's edit summaries there may be some weight to this. As such, I didn't remove the tags. It does appear in some sense to be a personal website, however, it says it is hosted by the Audie Murphy Research Foundation with the following self-description: "The Audie Murphy Research Foundation is a non-profit, public benefit organzation established for the purpose of collecting, preserving, and making available to the public historical information concerning the life and times of Audie Murphy. It was founded by Terry M. Murphy, Audie's oldest son." I'm not aware of this organization, or the claims it makes. Any thoughts on this website's reputability?ndyguy (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "I would like to thank ..." sections lead me to doubt how much of an "organization" there is. And an organization dedicated to upholding the memory of an individual has an inherrent conflict of which we should be wary to base so many claims using it as the source.-- The Red Pen of Doom  00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me saying so: I think you have made the article completely unreadble plastering the same template all over it everywhere. One template stating you find the quoted site unreliable would have sufficed. --Maarten1963 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maarten1963, this article is hard to read. The unreliable resource tag is used 15 times in this article, everytime applying to source #3.  There is only 1 spot in the entire article where that source is the only source quoted, that should be the only place to have the unreliable tag. Adder0001 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Audie Murphy Memorial Site is an personal site with errors... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.31.20 (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Scots Irish?
Since when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobashiloveme (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration?
I heard that Audie Murphy provided some inspiration for the 'Inglourious Basterds' Tarantino film. I don't see too much connection. But does anyone have any proof of this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.149.201 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The German soldier that is the Hero that comes home to act out his own war story. That is what they are talking about. I think the guy they picked looks an awful lot like a young AM so I can see what they are saying. I haven't heard anything from Terintino though saying that is what he did. Maybe he thinks people will frown on him using the most decorated soldiers of WWII as inspiration for a German in his movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Any talk of this is complete speculation. Icearmy2000 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Audie Is the Most Decorated Soldier of WW II
There has been much written about Lewellyn Chisholm and Matt Urban as being more decorated than Murphy. Hopefully this will set the record straight. Urban was decorated but.... I digress! Matt Urban is not the most decorated soldier of WW2. Urban did not receive the French Legion of Honor or the American Distinguished Service Cross. Please know that my attempt here is NOT to denigrate the military achievements of Colonel Urban or to insult his family. There's no doubt that in having the Medal of Honor, Colonel Urban was a hero, and, indeed, America should remember all her heroes and the price they paid. There are so many recipients more decorated and higher decorated than Colonel Urban. He simply does not belong in the classifications his proponents or the media assign him. He is NOT the “Most Decorated Soldier of WWII”, nor is he the “Most Decorated in American History” — or any variation of the above.

Audie is quantitatively and qualitatively more highly decorated than Colonel Matt Urban, who has 29 awards; his service medals and their appropriate devices are NOT for bravery. Audie has 34 awards, including the Distinguished Service Cross, our second highest medal for valor, which Colonel Urban lacks. Audie also has the higher French award: the Legion of Honor (Chevalier). Audie’s Marksman and Expert Badges are not military awards, per se; they are qualification badges, and therefore not included in the tally.

Here are Audie’s OFFICAL AWARDS:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL AND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL CENTER WASINGTON, D.C. 20314 7SEP 1979

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

SUBJECT: MAJ AUDIE MURPHY - Authorization for Awards and Decoration

LIST OF AWARDS

Medal of Honor Distinguished Service Cross Silver Star with First Oak Leaf Cluster Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device and First Oak Leaf Cluster Purple Heart with Second Oak Leaf Cluster Good Conduct Medal Distinguished Unit Emblem with First Oak Leaf Cluster American Campaign Medal European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine Campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead (representing assault landing at Sicily and Southern France) World War II Victory Medal Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp Armed Forces Reserve Medal Combat Infantryman Badge Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier French Croix de Guerre with Silver Star French Croix de Guerre with Palm Medal of Liberated France Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

There simply is no cutoff point in assigning titles or classifications; it is a personal matter. The Department of the Army refuses to participate in such debates. Army spokeswoman Martha Rudd commented that, “The military does not rank soldiers by numbers or types of medals awarded.”

Carol Cepregi with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society states, “It is not possible to say who is the nation's most decorated soldier,” and adds that “medals are of varying weight and significance and are awarded under differing circumstances.”

The people who decide such unofficial titles are researchers and proponents of a particular individual, whereby inadequate research is oftentimes conducted and conclusions unjustly made.

Someone recently mentioned to me that there would NEVER be another Audie Murphy and I believe this to be partially correct.

Perhaps when Audie received his Medal of Honor on June 2, 1945, he was the most decorated soldier of WWII. I cannot confirm that this is still a true statement today, and I take the position that he was one of the most - and highest-decorated of WWII. I know of no WWII infantryman more decorated and there is definitely none more celebrated.

World War II was a supported war. America knew she must prevent expansion of the Nazi empire. She also realized that she must take action to further prevent massacre and tyranny, such as Germany’s resolve to eradication the Jewish people. And tactically, America had to stop the Nazi overthrow of England. Thus, through the carnage of war, Audie Murphy, the hero, was born.

Vietnam and Korea were not popular wars, but there were many heroes, far more - and highly - decorated than Audie, who came forth and displayed their mettle. But they lacked the notoriety, fame, and news coverage that accompanied Audie’s heroic deeds, and followed him throughout the remainder of his life. In that sense, there will never be another Audie Murphy.

Colonel Urban does not even come close to the following individuals:

The one individual who is the "Highest and Most" from the Vietnam War is Colonel Robert Lewis Howard. Colonel Howard has, including the Medal of Honor and other valor and non-valor awards, plus all the appropriate devices, a total of 89 awards. This listing includes 2 Distinguished Service Crosses; 4 Legions of Merit and 8 Purple Hearts.

Colonel George “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.)(POW) Vietnam, has 79 medals and devices, which includes the Medal of Honor, Air Force Cross (same as Army DSC), and the Distinguished Service Medal, which takes precedence over the Silver Star (which he also has).

Also noteworthy is Vice Admiral John D. Bulkeley USN, who, in addition to the Medal of Honor has THREE Distinguished Service Crosses and THREE Distinguished Service Medals.

I must also mention Eddie Rickenbacker, WWI, who has the Medal of Honor and SEVEN Distinguished Service Crosses. Originally he had eight, but one was upgraded to the Medal of Honor in 1930. He has the quality but not the quantity.

Regulations now restrict and allow for only one Medal of Honor. If one excludes the 19 DOUBLE Medal of Honor recipients from the Civil through World War I, then the title of "Most and Highest Decorated Soldier in American History" belongs to General Douglas MacArthur. He has the most medaled chest of any combatant in American history with a total of 114 awards. This includes the Medal of Honor, 3 Distinguished Service Crosses and 7 Silver Stars. Yes, many of his awards were because he was General of The Army but our top THREE valor awards cannot be ignored.

Oftentimes, the layperson assumes "Most" means "Highest" and this is not correct. Highest, as the word coveys, is a qualitative reference. With regards to US military decorations, this includes the Congressional Medal of Honor. The use of "Most" is a quantitative reference. In this respect, excluding General MacArthur, Colonel David Hackworth, USA (Ret.) has the numbers. Counting all his medals, valor and non-valor, and all the appropriate devices, he has 89! However, he lacks the Medal of Honor.

There are those who attempt to control titles and conclusions by altering the criteria. For example, limiting it to the top three valor awards (Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star); the time frame (i.e., WWII, Korea, Vietnam); branch of service; or deciding whether foreign awards should be included in the criteria, and then, what values they equate to in the American awards. Part of the difficulty in limiting it to a specific war is the fact than many recipients served in two or more wars. A researcher would need a valid database and a computer to separate the time frames. All of these factors can alter conclusions.

Doug Sterner, Director of the Hall of Heroes Museum in Pueblo, Colorado, stated, "Some individuals may have many rows or ribbons or numerous medals, all of which may be quite low in the PYRAMID OF HONOR. A quantity of medals does not necessarily indicate someone who has seen combat, but may in fact simply denote an individual with many years of service, and many overseas deployments. However, that the sight of multiple rows of medals are generally perceived by the public, who may not recognize the ribbons as being ordinary decorations presented for good conduct or service, and think they are seeing a great hero."

That being said, when one compares Audie Murphy to Matt Urban, Audie continues to reign as the Most-Decorated Soldier of World War II. (Audiesdad (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Audiesdad has presented an excellent monograph (above) on medals. I should also like to point out that many medals and decorations have been devised as time goes by.  In WWI we didn't have the Bronze Star and Silver Star, for instance.  During WWII the Air Medal was being awarded and an equivalent medal for foot soldiers was devised, originally to be called the Ground Medal, which became the Bronze Star.  The Silver Star was originally a tiny silver star on a campaign ribbon but was changed into a full medal sometime in the 1930's as I recall.  The Medal of Honor is quite a history in itself--it was devised during the Civil War and originally people could recommend THEMSELVES for the MOH!  People in the Civil War were awarded the MOH for capturing Confederate flags.  Lincoln's honor guard at his funeral all got the MOH.  An entire unit was awarded the MOH for re-enlisting.  There was a female doctor who got the MOH for nagging Congress for more money and such for her services--they gave her the MOH to get her off their backs.  Many of these MOH medals were later rescinded.  When I was in the Vietnam War my Wing Commander when I was in the 23rd Wing had over a hundred medals and decorations (including 50 Air Medals), he'd been through WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  So it can get to be a confusing issue.  But Audie Murphy's medals are combat medals, and at the time of WWII he received all the medals the infantry could bestow (he was not engaged in aerial combat so he didn't get the Air Medal or Distinguished Flying Cross).  I think the reasons Audie was such a good combat infantryman were his small size (which made him a small target), his excellent marksmanship (Sgt. York was also a country boy who was a crack shot) and his aggressiveness in battle.  Audie was actually a good actor:  In the John Huston movie "The Unforgiven" with Burt Lancaster, Audie has a great line where they're all sitting at the breakfast table, besieged outside by Indians, and Audie, fomenting to kill Indians, yells at Burt "We can kill three of them before breakfast!"  66.122.185.95 (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

THE AWARDS LIST posted here (above post) is for 1979. Audie Murphy's authorized military awards (which includes decorations) were corrected and updated by the U.S. Army. Murphy did not fully meet the 30 consecutive days on duty requirement for the "Army Occupation of Germany Medal" because he was on leave part of the time in Germany. Murphy was not entitled to the French Liberation Medal because French Legion of Honor holders could not get this medal by French Decree, Sept. 1948 (see Wikipedia, French Liberation Medal-Eligibility); the "liberation of France" is also included in the Legion of Honor citation. The "DSC" medal counts as one decoration. The Legion of Honor medal counts as one foreign decoration (below U.S. military awards in order of precedence) and was awarded for the same action his Medal of Honor was awarded for. All living WW2 veterans who helped liberate France can now be awarded the Legion of Honor medal (Chavalier/Knight) by France. Audie Murphy was awarded ten U.S. Army combat decorations (MOH, DSC, 2-SS, LM, 2-BSM's, and 3-PH's)for WWII.

MATT URBAN was awarded more U.S Army combat "decorations" than Murphy for WW2. It doesn't matter if he has a DSC or not. Its not about which solider has the most DSC's or the most military "awards". The book, "The Matt Urban Story, Our Most Combat Decorated Soldier" (by Urban/Conrad, 1989), lists Urban's military decorations. His latter Arlington Cemetery headstone also list his awards (including decorations) on the backside. Urban's authorized military awards were corrected and updated by the U.S Army. Urban gained some awards (some were decorations). He was awarded seven Purple Heart award decorations.

LLEWELLYN CHILSON was awarded three more U.S. Army combat "decorations" than Murphy for WW2. It doesn't matter if he has a Medal of Honor or not. Its not about which soldier has a Medal of Honor or has the most "awards". General officers such as Patton and MacArthur received many U.S. Army and foreign awards (including decorations); they wouldn't be considered as combat soldiers (infantry) for WW2.

U.S. ARMY combat soldiers (infantry) were awarded Bronze Star Medals for WW2 by President Roosevelt (CIB-Combat Infantryman Badge required). Navy, Marine Corps, and Army Air Corps servicemen in WW2 did not receive this combat decoration. There were soldiers who were awarded the Army Commendation (decoration) during WW2 which Murphy (and Urban) did not receive for WW2.><'''small> —Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This article lacks a "Controversy" section addressing the possibility that Matt Urban is the most decorated soldier instead. Therefore I am tagging it with POV to indicate that it does not tell all sides of the story. I would encourage all editors to please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point-of-view. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm Steve Austin, & I'll be your pilot
What was the cause of the fatal wreck? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of films
An anonymous IP has just changed, among other things I won't deal with here or in my revert of him, the number of films made by Murphy at two points in the intro, where exactly what's being counted is defined differently. In the first paragraph, "...thirty-nine films" with no further elaboration became forty-four, while in the third, "thirty-nine Hollywood films" (emphasis mine) also becomes 44. Audie Murphy legacy lists a total of 49 credits for him; three are TV anthology series guest appearances and another is his own series, leaving 45 credits. If we presume that his brief introduction to War Is Hell is not counted, that leaves the newly posted 44. Two are foreign films (Trunk to Cairo, Israel, and The Texican, Spain). Another is the never-released A Time for Dying, whose qualification as a Hollywood film is open to debate, and probably will always be. Mike Searson, the editor responsible for 39, and I had a debate about this earlier; as you can see if you follow that link, he insisted on putting his posts on my talk page. He has a citable source for his number, but as that cite is attached only to the second instance, that is the only one I'll revert, leaving the first 44 as is. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Purple Hearts
what does this mean?? it is under the Medals section "Valor device, and three Purple Hearts (all for genuine combat wounds). "

Did he receive purple hearts while at home or something? It's about the most redundant statement I have ever seen. Cant that betaken out and so people don't think he was picking them up on the boat ride home while they were lying around in the other soldiers rooms.

G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Servicemen received Purple Hearts for non-combat injuries nevertheless suffered while on-duty and during a war. For example, someone on motor pool duty who cut himself on a blade while replacing a jeep's fan belt while we were at war would qualify for a PH. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. You can not get a purple heart for cutting yourself on a fan belt!! You just belittle real heros like AM by making that claim. Just go read the section on criteria for getting a purple heart on the wiki purple heart page and you will quickly find out that your statement is false. You only get a purple heart for a combat wound period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I have gotten involved with wiki and changing it up for the better. So what happens next. How do we get that redundantly repetitive restatement of the original statement that originally said what was meant by the original poster in his original posting in the first place! Gp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.189.168 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In short, there are only two ways to get a purple heart: To either be bodily injured (or killed) by an enemy force, or to bodily injured by friendly fire while in engaged against an enemy. The proposed recipient must have participating in direct or indirect combat operations at the time the injury was received, but this is not sole justification for award. Just how involved the enemy has to be in the circumstances of a particular incident is decided on a case-by-case basis. This is ultimately up to the commander who makes the award, although he or she can be overruled by higher authority. Also, if the injury was the result of either gross negligence or deliberate and needless self-harm on the part of the injured person, no award can be made, even if the wounded person was in direct combat with the enemy at the time. Thus, shooting yourself in the foot will not get you the purple heart, even if you were in direct contact with the enemy at the time. Furthermore, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a footnote, I've read where Marines at field aid stations in Vietnam being treated for "minor" wounds were ordered back on the line by their commanders without being documented as wounded so that their unit would not be "officially" getting too many casualities. Perhaps there's a lot of guys who didn't get their Purple Hearts because of lack of documentation.  Also, I think you can get a Purple Heart for an "injury" (like a brick building falling on you), not just a wound from bullets or shrapnel.  I've also read where soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are being denied Purple Hearts for serious head concussions from IED's, due to more bureaucratic constraints.  71.139.247.247 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the individual claiming you cannot be given a Purple Heart for getting cut while working in the motor pool is flat-out wrong. The abuse involved in the awarding of Purple Hearts is so well-documented that it is beyond dispute that untold thousands, particularly in Vietnam, were given out for next to nothing. The assertion that the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart is evidence in itself that none were given out for non-combat wounds is beyond hilarious, considering the history of the award. The parenthetical "genuine combat wounds" statement needs to stay in the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.117 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Medal of Occupation Rescinded for Audie Murphy
I recall reading somewhere that Audie Murphy's Medal of Occupation was taken away from him because he spent the 30 days on leave rather than on active duty. Anybody else heard about this or is it just an urban legend? 71.138.27.200 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Murphy had over 20 days at normal post duty but not the full 30 consecutive days required for the Army Occupation of Germany Medal because he was on leave time part of the time in Germany. Also, Murphy is not entitled to the French Liberation Medal. By French Decree 1948, Legion of Honor recipients cannot get this medal (see Wikipedia-French Liberation Medal, Eligibility). The Army corrected and updated Murphy's authorized military awards. The Armed Forces Reserve Medal has specific requirements too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 edits
I've reverted a mass of misspelled, mis-capitalized, and completely uncited information that was added in the past couple of days. Much of the uncited new material is in conflict with the citations which are included by previous editors, and since it is unacceptable to alter the content of cited material away from what was actually stated in the citations, and because the spelling and capitalization errors were so rife, I've reverted the lot. Significant changes such as these must have their own citations and not ride on the backs of citations which already exist and contradict the new edits. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Audie Murphy
On April 11, 2011, I pulled up Audie Murphy's story. I was delighted to see my name listed in the writers music section. I pulled it up again today May 22, 2011, only to see my name removed and my ex-husband Ray Eddlemon's name inserted. If you would check with Pi-Gem Music Company Inc. you will see my name is listed along with Audie's as a writer, or I can fax you a copy of the music itself, "Was it all worth Losing You." We all did write together, Audie, myself and my ex-husband Ray. I believe those two might have published others, I don't remember. I have a few songs we wrote together, written in Audie's hand that may or may not ever been published. We were very close the last few years of his life and since his death I have stopped writing. Ray Eddlemon is no longer living. I hope you will again add my name or make a correction.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Terri "Eddlemon" Prim Zephyrhills, Florida 75.104.198.173 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Last Remaining Soldier in Company?
I remember reading that Audie Murphy was the last remaining soldier of his original company, all the others having become casualities. Anybody got any RS on this? 71.139.247.247 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDB as source
I was shocked to find that Internet Movie Database is used copiously as a source. It is well-established that IMDB is not a reliable source. Can we rectify this problem? I hate to remove the text sourced to IMDB, as most of it is not controversial, but it doesn't belong there. I've also removed a POV tag as there is no active POV dispute. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged pending resolution of this issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates of Rank images
I recently made an addition reflecting Audie Murphy's Dates of Rank with images of the ranks attained and reference. However, the images of the ranks were removed by GraemeLeggett (talk | contribs), remarking them as "superfluous and distracting."

I completely disagree. I do understand the edit to be in good faith and in support of Wikipedia's purpose, but I do not understand how they are unnecessary or in excess of what can be provided on a page.

Rather, the images provide for a clean visual reference to the rank Audie Murphy attained and can be aesthetically pleasing (just as they are on many other notable military figures). Moreover, if images are considered superfluous and distracting, why were there no edits removing the images of Murphy's awards, ribbons, decorations, and badges? Additionally, what about the countless articles that also include images; personnel, weapons, equipment, units, et cetera. Adding the images of the ranks Murphy attained is not prohibited by any of the sources I searched; Picture Tutorial, Images Layout, Images Accessibility, but perhaps I'm wrong.

I invite others to discuss whether the images should be added or not. Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note but you forgot to sign your post!.
 * I also think they are acceptable but there are others who disagree and I do not believe that there is consensus either way so as far as I can tell it boils down to the editors personal preference. Unfortunately there's no good answer. Many editors like us like these displays and others would rather see a wordy article with no (or at least very few) pictures. The problem is that when you get an article higher on the grade scale and close to FA the less these displays are tolerated. I would note that there is a similar related discussion occurring on the Military history talk page about the display of ribbons and badges as well. --Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling the images superfluous and distracting is a bit harsh. There are some biographical articles on military figures that include images of their rank. Why this article should not include them makes little sense Patton and Petreaus has them.  I would however think that they could be retained in a more compact format like what we see on those other pages.  Perhaps that would make them less distracting to others, and still retain the information with images.  BTW, if the images are reinstated I would recommend using the era appropriate enlisted rank insignia found at United States Army enlisted rank insignia of World War II. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Following rules of logic, just because one article contains such images does not mean another article should. Logic aside, I support including images so long as we incorporate EricSerge's suggestion. The original images were too large and, in fact, distracting in that regard.  So try the vertical layout used with Patton, or better yet Petraeus. (Man, he racked up a lot of overseas bars! I only got 3.)--S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for more input (specifically from GraemeLeggett because they are a reputable editor) before making any changes. In consideration of what's been discussed, it may be best to emulate the tables of Generals Patton and Petreaus for listing Murphy's dates of rank. Thanks for the assistance! Bullmoosebell (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like this? EricSerge (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed table in Eric's sandbox looks good. The information is encyclopedic in that it's has both general historical and direct biographical relevance to the article. Unlike a simple listing a compact table lays out the information in a way that is easily accesable and aesthetically pleasing. Plus, there's precedence. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2 items: 1. Add in the May 22, 1969, US Army Retired Reserve. 2. Add the "Federal Recognition" for the National Guard promotions. This data is available at http://www.audiemurphy.com/army.htm, which is cited in the article. Rationale: the distinctions are subtle, but worthwhile in the table. For soldiers who are members of the National Guard components, they can receive NG promotions (and commissions) that are or are not federally recognized. It looks like this was the case with Murphy. He went from Active Duty (AUS) into the Reserves in August 45. Then he joined the TX NG in 1950. Technically and legally he did not leave the AUS at that time (or ever). When he joined the TX NG, he did so with a Captaincy. Only after 3 months did the TX NG say "Yes, you are a Captain in the TX NG." even though he was already a Captain in the Reserve Corps. Further rationale: an officer in the Reserve Components (National Guard and Army Reserve) holds the office (the lieutenantcy, captaincy, majority, colonalcy, etc.) until they resign, are dismisses, retire, or die. In the case of retirement, they simply transfer from the active or reserve component into the retired component; they maintain their particular rank. (Which is why I am LTC Rich (Ret).) Murphy remained a Major (Ret.) until his death.--S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As said above, there are those editors like myself, that are not opposed to having the date of rank tables, but there are also those who do not agree with them, therefore there is not a consensus on such a table's inclusion in an article. Also as said above, minimizing the size of the tables may help from getting it removed in good faith by detractors of such tables. Perhaps rather than listing multiple dates for the same rank in different organizations, one should add foot notes when each organization recognized the rank within their organization. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Brief comment. Is it useful to point out that Petraeus' rank table is "back to front" ie not in chronological order. The use of small rank insignia is a good idea as it does not dominate the key information (date and rank). Though the varying insignia size causes justification issues with the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, seeing the ranks listed in reverse chronological order seems to create a dissonant aesthetic. Bullmoosebell (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Second brief comment - the practice of including rank images may not be able to be replicated equally across articles. The British Army insignia (eg Field Marshal's are non-free and therefore require adequate rationale for each use. Other militaries may be in the same position. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the rank images, but I don't think they are necessary. I think that sourcing is a more pressing problem. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever consensus we all come to on the ranks, images, etc. The table is still in my sandbox in both chronological order, and reverse chronological order. Cheers EricSerge (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be unnecessary to list multiple recognition of the same rank by sub-organizations. Perhaps a footnote can be added, in place of multiple Captain or Major rank recognitions. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2 October 2011 edits
I've reverted wholesale the edits by Yahwehsaves on this date, because although some of them are acceptable and/or accurate, there are too many errors of both fact and style to be ignored. Punctuation and capitalization in particular are flawed, and many of the changes are cosmetic and neither meaningful nor stylistic improvements. A careful revision of these edits would make many of them acceptable, but presently the article is better the way it was before these particular edits. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem - just be nice, I'm sure the guy is doing his best. Speaking of which, he's been heavily editing the Matt Urban article. If you have the time, you might wish to review those edits, too. Rklawton (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have had contact with this editor before and I agree with the above. But he was unresponsive to my criticism on his user talk page. Your mileage may vary. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not to say that the article is perfect as it is. The lead paragraph is awkward. But overall the changes proposed by this editor don't improve it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article was poorly done and in need of much editing and quality control. It starts out Murphy was a 5th grade dropout. Someway to treat a famous "American actor and national war hero" (this was erased today to back to being a 5th grade drop out). His colored ribbon bar list (unecessarily doubled with tiny colored ones by his photo) is discribed inncorrectly sometimes and is out of military precedence (PUC) and doubled ribboned (French Croix de Guerre comes as one ribbon only like the other ribbons) and definitely needed(s) improvement. This isn't the correct military way. Just what are the "too many errors of fact" mentioned here (above)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted all edits back to 30 September 2011. There have been too many incorrect or unnecessary edits. I don't suspect vandalism, rather, YahweySaves, may not have a grasp on WP guidelines and structure, thus resulting in disruptive editing. In my opinion, these edits are taking away from the page to reflect an individual's subjective accuracy, or simply shallow and pedantic. In the event this conduct continues, I suggest contacting an administrator. Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial" birth year
The image of the headstone has the caption "with the controversial birth year 1924". The article does not make mention of this controversy. This article needs to either explain the controversy, or else remove orphaned references to it such as this one. Manning (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct "Andrew Stevens" to "Andy Robinson" in "Unmade Films" section
The "Unmade Films" section lists Audie as having lost out to "Andrew Stevens" for a role in Dirty Harry. This is both incorrect & not what the cited source says: to pit Audie against Clint Eastwood in the first of the successful detective series. This could have been Audie’s great comeback role, garnering him renewed fame and box-office clout. One of the most tragic aspects of Audie’s death in 1971 was that he never had the chance to match himself against Clint Eastwood as the psychopathic punk who has been immortalized by the question, “Do you feel lucky today?” This clearly refers to the role of the Scorpio Killer; which went to Andrew Robinson, credited as "Andy Robinson".
 * DIRTY HARRY. Don Siegel, an early director of Audie westerns and a friend, wanted
 * It does not mention either Stevens or Robinson.
 * The Dirty Harry pages here & at IMDb show Robinson in this role, & have no mention of Stevens in any role.
 * Robinson's page agrees.
 * Stevens' page agrees also -- there is no mention of Dirty Harry in his credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.45.200.48 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Purpose
17-June-2007: This article was created June 17 (2007) to provide space for hashing details of Audie Murphy's cultural influence or legacy in the world. In contrast, the main bio article "Audie Murphy" is intended for specific personal details, such as life events, military actions, and events that occurred during his lifetime. In 1986, some 15 years after he died, the "Sergeant Audie Murphy Club" was formed at Fort Hood, Texas, later expanding into many chapter clubs over the past 21-year history. Many of his 44 films are being re-released into DVD format, 36 years after his plane crash. There is some controversy about reports of him carrying a gun to film sets and scaring crew members, or potential violent behaviour between film sessions. This is related to the PTSD ("battle fatigue") depression and public speeches about veteran's health issues. Overall, there is more information than appropriate for the original bio article, so the article "Audie Murphy legacy" provides space for expanding details, without crowding the main article. -Wikid77 23:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

 * [ Discuss unnamed topics here. -Wikid77 ]

Deletion from Intro:
I just deleted a sentence from the opening that after mentioning Major Murphy's 33 decorations, claimed that it was "a challenge" to meet or surpass this "record". As a Marine veteran, I found this at best ignorant, and at worst, demeaning of his, and every other serviceman's accomplishments. Earning awards and recognition is not a competition, and is certainly not a numbered issue in which we keep 'score'. We in the military (past and present) hold those who have been decorated in the highest regard, and we do not seek to 'beat' them, but to emulate them. For example, my Grandfather, an infantry 1st Lt., and 70th ID Vet of WW2, earned among others two Bronze Stars. I do not desire to earn more than him, but rather to learn from his example, and to continue on. Please, for those of you who write articles on military events/and/or people, do not belittle Decorations to the level of being competitions, because they are far, far more than that. Deeter063 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronological reordering source
I just moved the early film, Sierra, from its previous placement, after Bad Boy, his first lead, and before The Kid From Texas, wherein he played William "Billy the Kid" Bonney, to after that film and before Kansas Raiders,, wherein he played Jesse James. According to Sue Gossett in her book, The Films and Career of Audie Murphy, Empire Publishing, 1996, Kid was filmed "May 26, 1949 to June 29, 1949" and released "March 1950"; Sierra 's dates were "August 30, 1949 to October 3, 1949" and "June 1950"; and Raiders 's were "May 22, 1950 to June 24, 1950" and "November 1950." Comparing her list to what's here indicates that release dates, rather than filming order, are being followed here (fair enough, of course), but as one can see, either way Sierra falls between the Billy and Jesse pictures, not before both. I just couldn't see a way to ref. it in the article. Brian Garfield, in his excellent but flawed 1982 book, Western Films, said those two were shot back-to-back, and that may be where the prior ordering came from, but he was wrong. Writing just as the modern cable TV and home video booms were taking off, he was unable to screen movies almost at will as we can today, and he consequently got a number of details wrong (most of which are completely forgivable, don't misunderstand me). Ted Watson (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: The IMDb now reflects Gossett's information. Ted Watson (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Coliseum
Isn't there a Coliseum named for him in North Texas and/or Southern Oklahoma? 204.65.0.24 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge
I can not see a reason to have a separate article on legacy. Articles on people are typically not split. Inwind (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Legacy should be merged here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of agree. Merge the main text, yes, but the film list should be kept separate, like Bruce Lee filmography. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy legacy merged here
See 2009 discussion above. Nothing was ever done about the 2009 merge, but everything on the Audie Murphy Legacy page, with the exception of more detail about the SAMC, was a duplicate of what is on this main article. I merged the SAMC here and put a Redirect on that page. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Per your request on the WPUS talk page. Feel free to put this wherever is most useful for you. Good luck with getting the article promoted. If you ask User:Hawkeye7, he may be willing to help out. He has gotten several of the other Medal of Honor recipients to FA status. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It might be better to create a separate article (similar to Service summary of Douglas MacArthur) with the awards (military and civilian and maybe even the long list of movies) and then summarize it in paragraph format in the article.
 * Since he was a Medal of Honor recipient you might want to glance at Kenneth Walker and see how that article is written.
 * Some of the references need expanding such as 4, 17 and 41
 * As this gets closer to FA I think that some of the citations will be called into question. For examples, 23 and 50 (IMBD), 63 (Flickr)
 * I recommend replacing the Medal of Honor citation reference with
 * Move the Medal citation into the Medal of Honor action and valor awards section with the description of the action
 * Drop the Other decorated combat soldiers, World War II section, its really irrelevent to the article
 * Change the Portal links to be like the ones on Kenneth Walker
 * Remove the Audie Murphy legacy link, it redirects back to the article
 * I don't think we need all the refs in the infobox, the info in the infobox should be in the article and cited.
 * Move the Audie Murphy clubs section under Other honors
 * Move the Audie Murphy clubs section under Other honors
 * Thank you. I have the feeling you're my old buddy "K" who is currently on a semi-rest from regular editing.  I wanted to involve your opinion on this, but didn't approach you directly out of respect for your current sabbatical from WP.  Thanks for chiming in, I will go directly to Hawkeye7 and see how that goes. — Maile  (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and you are correct.:-) Feel free to stop by anytime. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just finished giving the Audie Murphy filmography its own page. If you check the Peer Review where I copied this message, you'll notice I've already acted on most of your excellent suggestions.  The others will follow - just a matter of when I get to them. — Maile  (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Publishing history of To Hell and Back
Of what value is this list? It looks extraordinarily trivial. Rklawton (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm open to your opinion. I didn't know if it should be there or not, so I stuck it on.  Does it take away from the quality of the article? — Maile  (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Audie Murphy article on Amazon.com
Worth noting here when I ran a Toolserver copyvio on this page today, [ http://www.amazon.com/wiki/Audie_Murphy/ref=ntt_at_bio_wiki Amazon's link to the WP Audie Murphy page] triggered a false positive on copyvio. Theirs is apparently a direct link to WP, because edits I made today are current on that Amazon AM page.— Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Awards suggestion
Suggest you consider changing "Awards" in the info box (and other such boxes) to "Decorations" because the rest of the awards (not decorations) are not listed in the box. Someone said before that this was too much or big of a change to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 3:59 13 March 2013
 * The infobox is a protected template. The parameters of that can only be edited by Administrators. You need to post this at Template talk:Infobox military person — Maile (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Anachronism
In 1946 there was no such crime as "carjacking", therefore there could not have been a "carjack suspect". The first known use of the term was in 1991:. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Back then it was called a "holdup", but the meaning of words can change over time, and "holdup" relates more to stopping a vehicle to rob the passengers of their property, rather than the vehicle itself, in people's minds. Wiki aims to target a modern audience, and because the crime itself involved the attempted theft of a car, then the use of "carjack" sounds more appropriate than "a holdup", which may have lost its bygone meaning to many readers. I can't find anything in the MOS that relates to this kind of old to new translation directly, but I think MOS:COMMONALITY would apply best here, in that "carjack" has but one meaning, "holdup" several.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 06:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but it just reads (to me) as being odd and amateurish. Especially the "suspect" part, since there was no such crime.  I couldn't find the cited source on the internet, so I can't make any informed suggestions.   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, couldn't find it myself. There's a lot of the language in the article that is not of a high standard.. we're aiming to improve it to FA, but it takes time and patience, as new content is being added daily that often requires copy-editing.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 07:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have changed it around a bit, should read better now. Thanks for the concerns.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 07:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought about changing section header: 'Attempted carjacking' → 'Foiled crime' -to better represent content. Otherwise it might be misleading. — But I figured I'd post it here for consensus.   ~Good luck on the FA!  ☆    ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When we were doing the GA review, I had it here and there, trying to place it. It was the GA reviewer Khazar2 who moved it to that particular heading. Since it was the GA reviewer who did that, I'm leaning towards their knowing what they were doing.  So, until this article gets put up for an A review on its hopeful rise to FA, maybe it won't hurt to let the GA reviewer's heading stand. — Maile  (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem with another user changing that heading, FWIW. I think I was moving it out of the "Legal troubles" section at the time, and to be honest didn't put a lot of thought into the new header. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Source found (modified citation, thus):
 * However, this ref syntax is misleading, but I don't know how to fix it (1946 date relates to AP news article, which is in 1997 newsletter ; and URL should probably link to newsletter instead of article ; also, p. 18 of the PDF corresponds to p. 16 of the newsletter).  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However, this ref syntax is misleading, but I don't know how to fix it (1946 date relates to AP news article, which is in 1997 newsletter ; and URL should probably link to newsletter instead of article ; also, p. 18 of the PDF corresponds to p. 16 of the newsletter).  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not news, but I appreciate your effort. We had the link in the referencing, and it was there for a while.  Then I eliminated most of the ref links of the entire article on March 11 in order to decrease byte size of the article, with an edit summary that stated that.  Then you put the link back in yesterday, and I took the link out with a summary about why links were being eliminated in the referencing. Are you just saying you found this so we can see the word "holdup" instead of "carjacking"?  Because, as I explained on the edit history, when you put the link in and I took it out, the links are not necessary for referencing. I'm not trying to prevent anybody from seeing the source - we had that link in the referencing for a long time -  but  links in the referencing add bytes to the article size, which we are trying to keep down.  It's already a sizeable article.  I understand you don't think this should be called a carjacking.  But I don't understand why the link is necessary.  Unless you just want us to see that it wasn't called a carjacking in the article? Please clarify.  — Maile  (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And, in fact, we don't even need the Dallas Morning News AP story. Don Graham covers this story on pp.143,144, which is definitely easier to reference. Because the Don Graham reference is more consistent with a lot of other references in the article, and we don't have to worry about linking, I just now changed the reference in the article for the same story in Don Graham's book. — Maile  (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is (supposed to be) a cornerstone of Wikipedia; byte-size is not.  If that information was already available from a different source already available in the references, then there should have been an inline citation for it.  The idea is to make it easier for readers to have confidence in what they read, and be able to do their own proper follow-up research in a timely and efficient manner.  I can find nothing in Verifiability, Citing sources, Improving referencing efforts - or anywhere else stating that links to online sources should be deleted in order to decrease article byte-size.   ~Regards, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) [Modified: show "resolved" template - 74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)]

Multiple references
Why the use of multiple citations (up to five at a time) in the section European Theatre? This is excessive and affects readability. Unless anyone objects, I suggest they be pruned. Hohenloh + 14:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MILMOS: "The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited." Depending on the claims being referenced, the degree of support can vary.. i.e. controversial or challengeable material often requires more sourcing to substantiate the content. Five citations isn't really a great deal, and given that the article is being aimed at FA, thorough referencing is going to be important. Pruning should be handled with extreme care, as it may be seen as biased or selective referencing.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 15:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that information to my attention - I agree with it completely. However, there is also such a thing as Citation overkill. Ref 69 appears six times in the first paragraph, 101 four times in one section, 103 six times in one section. My point is that this situation could be improved, and more care taken in future - one of the main editors of the article has already complained of the plethora of citations. I don't wish to edit the refs myself, as I'm not familiar with the article and its history.


 * Another thing I noticed in the references is the use of links in refs such as "Murphy 2002" and "Graham 1989" to link back to the article page. I've never seen this done before and don't think it's correct. What do you think? Hohenloh + 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The apparent self-linking is part of the sfn referencing - it takes you down to the titles of the references uses so that you can see the full details about the book by Murphy, 2002, etc. I don't use that particular referencing system myself, given that the Notes section is right before the References section it simply adds a load of unnecessary HTML links, and increases page load, but some editors do use it, for whatever reason.
 * MILMOS vs Overkill – to be fair, many Wiki guidelines have opposing or contradictory guidelines. Someone writes one set of guidelines, people who oppose them write another set with a different but reasonable logic in mind. In the end you pick your team and play for it. When it comes to citing, you can either cite directly at the end of a sentence containing a claim, or the end of the paragraph. Pros and cons for both. For the sentence method you risk overkill claims, for the paragraph method you risk bundling the refs into one and it becomes uncertain which refs apply to which claims in the paragraph. This makes the sentence citing safer, in most respects. In some cases the citing can be spread a bit thinner to ease up on repetition. I have personally reviewed articles where there have been paragraphs dozens of lines long, then the refs placed at the end. By not using any inline citations it's impossible to relate something like "pp. 1, 3, 5–8, 32, 102, 122–130" to a huge body of text, and we generally do ask editors to break such refs down to the sentences they apply to.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hohenloh, the sfn citation style you're referring to is Harvard reference, and I'm the one who has been using it. It's actually handy in many ways.  However,  on the end goal of improving this article, I'm not sure if I'll leave it that way or not.  MarcusBritish has made a valid point elsewhere that every link adds bytes to an article.  This article is getting somewhat hefty.  I just haven't had a chance to deal with this issue here due to other things going on.  — Maile  (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Holtzwihr, France section
I have replaced the text entirely with the version that existed prior to March 9. Much of what was done since March 9 was lifted in its entirety from Newsletter 8 of www.audiemurphy.com. Too tedious to go sentence by sentence. It wasn't just what Duplication Detector caught. As I made a side by side comparison, it was plagiarism of Spec McClure's prose in Newsletter 8. Will check the other sections..— Maile (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A history on what has been happening to this. The copyvio was originally posted on March 9 by YahwehSaves.  I reverted it out.  YahwehSaves reverted me.  After I reverted it today, YahwehSaves did a second revert.  I posted a request for help at WikiProject Military history. Uninvolved editor Binksternet agreed that this was copyvio.  He had reverted the copyvio and left a message on the talk page for YahwehSaves.  — Maile  (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a sham, the AMF newsletter wasn't and isn't on the "See Also" list. The article editing improvements and corrections like Editor Binksternet said was done in good faith, I corrected the ranks of Lottie Tipton and Joe Sieja to pfc and they should not be made privates again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)
 * "Sham"? Makes no sense. First off, you may have the YesAutosign template on your userpage, but it doesn't always work, nor is it guaranteed to – please have the common courtesy to use the standard 4~ method in future to save the rest of us pissing about signing your posts, we ain't your skivies and such ignorance isn't welcome in a collaborative environment. To your point: No one is going to stop you correcting ranks and other such details, as long as they are reliably sourced. The complain here relates only to you virtually copy and pasting huge blocks of text from newsletters, which is a copyvio and is the responsibility of every member of Wiki to uphold, so why you keep reverting and acting as though you deserve special treatment makes no sense whatsoever. Get the message?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 07:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to make a statement here about sourcing of the Holtzwihr, France section that was reverted. The first time YahwehSaves reverted my revert, the editor had this in the edit summary, "...Improved article history based on reliable source for better accuracy..." and it's the source I would like to comment on. Among the sourcing I used on the action in Holtzwihr, was from the U.S. National Archives copies of the Army eye-witness accounts within days of the action. It is those accounts the government used to award Murphy the Medal of Honor.  It doesn't get more reliable or more accurate than that, in my opinion.


 * The source YahwehSaves used was the newsletter of the Audie Murphy Research Foundation, and their website is actually in the article's infobox. That's a respectable web site that has just about everything there is to be found on Murphy, including copies of the National Archives records. The Murphy family is involved with this, and Audie's son Terry Murphy is the president as stated on the newsletter masthead.  What YahwehSaves quoted from Newsletter 8 is part of the series "How Audie Murphy Won His Medals" that began with Newsletter 1, beginning on Page 9, and, written by David "Spec" McClure.  This is the man who helped Audie write To Hell and Back.  They began writing the book in 1948 based on Audie's memories.  I am not disputing the accuracy of Audie's memories of that, nor McClure's part in writing the book. However, what is stated in Newsletter 1 is this,


 * "How Audie Murphy Won His Medals was started in 1969, but not completed until 1971. I gave Audie this rough draft for corrections in April, 1971. He brought it back to me May, 1971 - the last time I saw him. I presume he went over it. The article is perhaps the most accurate thing ever written about Murphy and his medals. I got the material from 24 years of talking to Audie and his friends who knew him in combat."


 * Spec McClure is now dead, and I don't see that it was ever published anywhere but in the newsletter. It looks like Audie never commented about its accuracy to McClure. But putting memories together over a 24-year-span also involves a question of accuracy over that much time and several individuals. Was Spec McClure 100% accurate after 24 years of research?  Let's assume good faith on his part.  As sticky as Wikipedia can be about sourcing, I don't know if that floats or not. But you can't get more reliable or accurate than the Army's eye-witness interviews that  happened within days of the action when it was still fresh in everyone's mind. — Maile  (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Maile66 referenced sucessfully from the AMF newsletter on Feb. 23, "Legal issues" section. I referenced from newsletter sometime after February and not at the Legal issues section. Harsh remarks about me and to me is not in good faith.YahwehSaves (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not paying attention to what we're saying, and criticism of another editor is not bad faith, it's a necessity. There's a big difference between referencing a newsletter and copying from it almost word for word. One is legal, the other is not and must be removed to prevent copyright claims.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you or anyone else feels that way. I was referring to the slanted personal remarks to me. I made many improvements and some corrections to make the article better than before which is slighted. Whale of a difference than it was before. Don't know why Captain Harris's name was removed near the bottom of the Holtzwihr section that Murphy got or went off liaison duty because he heard Capt Harris was killed nearing the Siegfried Line (this is in Murphy's book or not?), and evidently the reason why Murphy went to take over the company near the line after the Comar Pocket which ended Feb. 6. Capt. Harris's name, and death, is significant (or not?) to this article section because it then gives a date Murphy went to the Siegfried Line which was almost a month after the 1/26 action.YahwehSaves (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)