Talk:Audie Murphy/Archive 3

Please do not make stylistic changes
I just reverted changes by an unregistered editor who made unnecessary stylistic changes to the Notes section. They broke up Note #2 that at length explains about Murphy's birthdate discrepancy. So instead of one combined note, the changes created 8 separate notes. This particular note had originally been separate citations but combined at the specific request of a sysop at the A-class review at WP Military History. That's why I reverted it back. Please, don't make stylistic changes anywhere within the article. It's unhelpful and unnecessary. And in this case, it undid part of what helped this article pass A-class review. This article is going for FAC, and it needs consistency. Definitely not the place to do your own thing. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So let's think about this. For the record, I am the editor who was reverted.  The Audie Murphy article came to my attention through discussion at WP:VPT#What's messing with Citation templates? and HT:CS1#What happened here?. Because it was brought to my attention, yesterday I visited it.  Because the the discussions at WP:VPT and HT:CS1 were about  templates, I looked closely at the first ten CS1 templates in the article.  Here they are:




 * All of them are citations, yet it is clear that half of them refer, in one way or another, to online sources (1, 7, 8, 9, 10) without an attendant link to the source.  The third cite refers to publisher AMRF; presumably this refers to Audie Murphy Research Foundation.  The fourth cite lists only a title and the obscure, undefined initialism C.A.R.O.  I was not able to determine what that initialism means.  So given this, I spent a little time running these sources down and modified them accordingly.


 * I could not find Handbook of Texas Online published by Texas Historical Commission. There is a website called Handbook of Texas Online published by the Texas State Historical Association.  The Kingston, Texas and Hunt County articles do not mention Murphy. His article at Handbook of Texas Online turns out to be cite 9 above.  These two I combined into one named reference. The location parameter should be removed from this citation.
 * At the Audie Murphy Research Foundation website I found this page with a title remarkably similar to the title in cite 2 above.
 * Found this link from the biographical sketch page; again, titles of this source and cite 3 above are remarkably similar
 * I could find nothing to identify the initialism C.A.R.O; the only change I made was from to
 * Murphy's enlistment record is not available online; the only change I made was from to
 * Online source for full text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 5; from the 83rd legislature
 * Online source for Murphy's Masons application
 * Online version of the newsletter with article title
 * Murphy's enlistment record is not available online; the only change I made was from to
 * Online source for full text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 5; from the 83rd legislature
 * Online source for Murphy's Masons application
 * Online version of the newsletter with article title
 * Online source for Murphy's Masons application
 * Online version of the newsletter with article title
 * Online version of the newsletter with article title
 * Online version of the newsletter with article title


 * To Editor Maile66's concerns regarding the break up of note 2. Here is the text as I found it (verbatim except that it's wrapped in ):


 * and following my edits:


 * I presume that Editor Maile66 is referring to this reviewer suggestion: "Hunt County, Texas.[2][3][4][5][6]" - does this really need five references? Given that the content of these refs amounts to a note about the confusion over his year of birth, I'd suggest consolidating this into a single note. (from WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Audie Murphy). It is clear that Editor Maile66 did break up the clump of citations though the note's readability suffers because citation text is intermixed with the note text.  This is where   is a handy tool because it allows   tags within a footnote.


 * I did not come to this article to make style changes. I am interested in the continued proper use of the CS1 templates.  From the example of the first ten instances of the templates in this article, it appears to me that much improvement can and should be made.  I have demonstrated how that might be accomplished


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed extraneous date text added at ; fixed an indent.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Those were errors, not meant to have been saved, thanks. I wish to have no conflict with you, and I assume on good faith that the feeling is mutual. I understand the points you've made here, and your focus especially in regards to CS1. Because of the recent happenings re CS1, I have been giving considerable thoughts to standardizing the sourcing on this article.  The whole Notes, References, External links, how it is presented and how it all works together, what information should really be where. It will be a time-consuming major task when I do it. The one you have touched upon is but one of almost 200 references.


 * If you have read much of the history of this article, the edit wars here have mostly been about sourcing in one form or another. And not about you personally, but what's happened in the history has sometimes been those who believe they are knowledgeable about the subject matter and sourcing aren't able (or willing) to verify by Wikipedia standards. Or they jump in with that they think is a valid format, and it's flawed and throws the surrounding text and sourcing out of alignment. Or maybe they just have the need to replace valid sources with their own (sometimes not WP valid) sourcing, just to feel they contributed or to be noticed or whatever the motivation is. Sometimes it's seemed like a never-ending "mop and bucket" operation just to keep up with those edits. And when you did your thing to the referencing, it seemed like just one more incident of many. Be that as it may, it's been an exhaustive year here at this article.


 * I hope you have the patience to bear with me and other editors until the standardization can be completed somewhere down the line. This article is eventually heading for FAC. .I believe the sourcing standardization is necessary before it gets nominated there. When this went for A-class review at WP Military History, valid concerns in that review caused me to essentially go through this article word by word, sentence by sentence, verifying what I had, replacing what a former "expert" had about Murphy's war experience, with information from published military sourcing. It was extremely tedious and time-consuming.  It will be the same to do it with the sourcing - all the sourcing, not just one citation - because I want to verify every source and piece of information as I go through the reworking of it.  Can we please just let conversation stand as is for a while. In the meantime, thank you for your valuable insights and examples. — Maile  (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Military Times is published by Gannett Government Media Corporation
Should this ever come up again, Military Times is published by Gannett Government Media Corporation, which is the publisher for American military services newspapers. It most definitely qualifies as reliable source. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC).

Closely checking for copyvio and sourcing
I am now beginning the tedious task of checking every edit that was made since March 7. We're going to have to start from Square One here, checking every word, every punctuation. From this point on, no copyvio, close phrasing, or changing text because somebody thinks their wording is better, can be counted as "good faith". We're aiming for FA. It has to be accurate, factual. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's clear that there has been some dubious editing. I'll be keeping this article on my watchlist until it completes ACR. BTW, per the lead, the MoH isn't pinned to anyone's chest is it? My understanding is that it is worn around the neck. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. And thanks for the tip re MoH, fine point I missed.  I'll make sure it's correct. — Maile  (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I am listing in this section the reverts/changes I'm making of previous edits that were in question. Not to blame, but to explain so that hopefully this does not happen again:— Maile  (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your continued efforts on this one, Maile. Sorry that as the article's GA reviewer I haven't been able to stay more active here--it's been changing so rapidly that I haven't been able to keep up without taking away from other projects. I will keep watching, though, and can hopefully be another pair of eyes when things are more stable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to know you're still watching. I have done little on this article since March 7 except try and check what YahwehSaves did.  Quite frankly, it's a continuing challenge and often confusing. I think it's coming down to that we have to take it back to where it originally was before YahwehSaves got involved, and build it up from here.   This shouldn't have happened. — Maile  (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dates below reflect YahwehSaves edits, my signature date is when I made changes

 * March 7 
 * YahwehSaves changed the lead from "for the rest of his life" to "after the war". I rv - Manual of Style/Words to watch - I changed it back to "for the rest of his life." And I sourced it in the body of the article.— Maile  (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * YahwehSaves unsourced changes to first paragraph under Military Service, removed. Primarily, it was the addition to the sentence that said Murphy tried to enlist. YahwehSaves added "after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese Navy on December 7, 1941"   December 7, 1941 was the official United States entry into World War II.  It was unsourced and vague.  "After" could have been any date between then and now.  Murphy's official enlistment was six months later, as is mentioned and sourced later in that paragraph. — Maile  (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * March 8
 * YahwehSaves changes on awarding of the Medal of Honor - inexplicably changed General Alexander Patch to General A.M. Patch, delinking it from its Wikipedia page. This and other text changes within the paragraph were not sourced. Rv this change to original text. — Maile  (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dates and numbers inconsistencies, YahwehSaves input European style. Corrected to consistency of American style used throughout the article. — Maile (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * March 9
 * Copyvio edit by YahwehSaves in the first paragraph of "Sicily and the Italian mainland" section. Text added was close paraphrasing from Newsletter#1 of the Audie Murphy Foundation. Some of it was exact copy. It wasn't caught by Duplication Detector, but by a side-by-side comparison of the source and the edited text.— Maile (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * March 12
 * Unsourced YahwehSaves cosmetic changes to first paragraph Honors and awards section, rv. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unsourced YahwehSaves changes under first paragraph of Anzio section rv. Primarily, his unsourced changing that lists Joe Sieja as a Pfc. The dedication page in Murphy's own book, and all other sources afterwords, give Sieja's rank as Pvt. Sieja died is the initial landing in Anzio. Ditto on YahwehSaves changing Lattie Tipton to Pfc. This was Audie Murphy's best friend, and in the dedication page in his book, as in other sources, Tipton is listed as Pvt. It was Tipton's death in France that spurred Murphy's action that earned him the Distinguished Cross. If there was an error on Tipton's rank, you wouldn't think it would be Murphy's and all other sources since that time. But without YahwehSaves sourcing anything, we have no way of knowing. — Maile  (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * March 14
 * Unsourced YahwehSaves changes to Montelimar, France and to first paragraph Northeastern France, where he delinked Cleurie, revert.— Maile (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * March 17-18
 * Edits by YahwehSaves. Sourcing of edits challenged by MarcusBritish above. YahwehSaves removed sourcing to War Department orders, replaced with his own scans. The scans are not references in and of themselves, and have not been properly sourced. Edits rv to version prior to the source challenge — Maile  (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction, "gun under his pillow for the rest of his life"
In the Introduction (and Postwar trauma section) by Maile66: His postwar stress caused him "to sleep with a loaded gun under his pillow the rest of his life". This is exuberant and should be removed from the introduction and Postwar trauma section (Maille66 Ref. 133, World Weekly News tabloid www.worldweeklynews, October 17, 1979, P. 43) +of+america's+greatest+hero,+october+17,+1989&source=bl&ots=M. Ref 133 source (paragraph 2) does not state "rest of his life". Who is to know Murphy's reason(s) to have the gun there and how many times and years Murphy slept with a gun under his pillow? The fact he slept with a pistol ("pistol" is in Ref source one time) under his pillow shouldn't be exploited in the article. My effort to improve this before by changing it to Murphy slept with a gun under his pillow after the war was deleted by Maile66, which I think should only be mentioned in the Postwar trauma section. YahwehSaves (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The mention that he slept with a gun is not exploitational, because it is sourced, and because it does not infer that he intended to use it for wrongful means - clearly it was a "comfort blanket", but adding that would amount to original research - only that it was a result of his PTSD that he carried a gun after the war. Yes, the "rest of his life" needs to be removed because it is not in the source, and though the article infers that it was "after the war", given that it was a result if his PTSD, which is post-war, we don't need to add that either, so it wasn't really an improvement to state the obvious. PS: Stop bloody tweaking every 2 minutes, keep getting edit conflicts!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Topic concern of mine here is of Murphy having a pistol under a pillow, whether that issue belongs (necessary) in the introduction. Same concern with the issue, "Murphy lied about his age to enlist in the military" (in introduction), does that issue belong in the introduction too. Far as what the pistol was there for, it was for his personal reason(s), I would say protection, whether he had PTSD at the time or not. Murphy's pistol, and Murphy lying to enter the service, don't belong in the article introduction; other vets (combat vets or not) had firearms at home (maybe under the pillow) before and after the war, and went into the service during WW2 at an early age like Murphy did.YahwehSaves (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps when you've learned what "copyvio" means, or how to reference sources properly, we can discuss the proper conventions of writing a lead for a GA or FA article that hasn't been messed up by someone who doesn't know basic Wiki guidelines. However, given your lack of responsiveness to your own issues, either on Milhist or ANI, and we know you are fully aware of these because you can't fail to miss the bright orange "New messages" notification and see that you are causing problems. Until you address the issues relating to yourself, your concerns regarding this article, the lead, the sources, or anything else, are quite unimportant by comparison and are unlikely to be taken seriously by editors who are just as reluctant to respond to your "concern" as you are to respond to theirs. Would suggest you pull your head out of the sand, the clouds, your backside, or wherever it is currently misplaced, and prioritise, learn to collaborate before trying to stir up a storm in a teacup. Is that in plain enough English for you to comprehend? Look to yourself before worrying about anything else. Wiki has guidelines for a reason, if you're unwilling to follow them, don't expect fair treatment from us over picky concerns.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 12:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of disruptive editing on Audie Murphy for YahwehSaves
This talk page seems to be your forum of choice, YahwehSaves. Your own talk page lacks response to valid concerns, and you have not participated when notified there of discussions on other pages that involve you. Prose in the above section reads as it if were written by a different individual. Edit history for YahwehSaves, and the IP 75.79.31.20 (identified as a Sock of YahwehSaves), vary in style, but the one above seems much more coherent than in the past. Is YahwehSaves a shared account? The content, however, is either deliberate disruptive editing, or uninformed. Murphy spoke out about sleeping with the gun, and other symptoms, to urge government assistance for veterans with PTSD. A veterans hospital bears his name as a result of his disclosures. You don't think that should be in the lead? What are you doing here?

Please read Signs of disruptive editing. Article history and talk page archives show your edit pattern since 2011, pausing October 2012, having made 53 edits in that time period, most of which were challenged and reverted. All that, before I ever made one edit to this article. Edit history of the article says that at the time you began editing, the article had pre-existing tags for sourcing issues, so the Wikipedia requisite for sourcing was obvious on your first day. You knew from the first time you made an edit that sourcing was a criteria. You were not responsible for another editor's lack, but you certainly are accountable for yours. And as much as you sometimes objected in those first two years of edit challenges, the history says that overall you just waited a few days and reinserted the erroneous edits at another time period. And you kept doing that until other editors just threw in the towel and went away. Whatever you personally believe your contributions were to this article, sourcing does not seem to have been one of your goals.

When I requested peer review on Feb 6, 2013, all the original issues were intact. Numerous editors, none of whom were you,  made 462 edits to clean up tagged issues, improve content,  pass a Peer Review, and bring this article to GA status on February 27. Again, the edit history does not lie. I was not the only editor working so hard on this article to elevate it. The issue at hand is that many editors worked very hard in February to clean up this article and get it to GA. Your edits are unsourced and unacceptable to GA status.

A week later, you began a 12-day spurt of edits with unverified content and copyvios. Repeating your pattern from 2011 and 2012, you just reinsert what has been challenged and removed. This talk page bears witness that most user edits since March 7 have centered around you. You have sidetracked the process and made yourself the center of attention. You used this talk page to protest editors questioning your work, asserting your edits were correct, and that you were not finished editing. Try your sandbox. You stated that you neither know nor care about the WP criteria, but leave edit summaries that say you are making improvements. Competence is required. You might also find this page interesting reading.

Audie Murphy is the subject of the article. He's the national war hero with the medals. Audie Murphy is the cowboy hero remembered up on the movie screen. And no matter how much disruption you throw out here, no matter how much you try to make this about you, it's still about Audie Murphy. It took teamwork to get Audie Murphy to GA, and future improvements will be multiple editors working in the same direction. Knock off the high drama. This is not about you, or me, or any one editor. Wikipedia has processes that need to be followed. Disruptive edits are counter productive. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

ISBN standardization
Per, WP:ISBN I just had all the ISBNs standardized for the same style: Who is correct? If we can't standardize the ISBNs to a single style, then how does any editor know which one to use with which ISBN? They don't exactly come with an instruction manual when you look up ISBNs. Some with knowledge here, please? — Maile (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 978-0-8050-8861-8
 * This edit was someone running AWB that changed the ISBNs to varied format
 * I reverted the change
 * The same editor with the AWB reverted my revert
 * The dashes are not there for decoration; they separate country of publication, publisher, book number, and a checknumber. The field length varies.  The ISBN article describes it.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I have a second question for you on this. At Amazon, the ISBNs are formatted: 978-0000000000.  On WorldCat, there is no format, just a straight line of numbers: 9780000000000.  Given that, how is the average user to know?  Taking on good faith that you know why the dashes break they way they do, how would the average user know that? My concern is that when this gets up to FAC, somebody in the review is going to say "Pick one style and be consistent."  Assume you know how those reviews are, where reviewers like everything to be consistently formatted. — Maile  (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people don't know, and there's no reason they should - it's not a fault. The MOS (IIRC) says either use no hyphens or use correctly placed hyphens. It won't say 'put hyphens after the first, fifth, and ninth numbers'.  Mr Stephen (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)  (PS - kip now, so I won't reply till tomorrow eve. No rush.)
 * The groups of digits in ISBN13 are all variable length except the prefix (978) and the check digit at the end (1 digit). It isn't nice and pretty as you'd like it to be. Perhaps this ISBN page is better for beginning your research on this topic.  I don't know that it is important to the reader to have all of the hyphenation correct – I don't see them taking the time to decode what the groups of digits mean.  So it's understandable that Google or Amazon or WorldCat or ... have a style and stick to it.  We don't have a style here.  Perhaps we should.  The computer can read the number can get you to Special:BookSources regardless of hyphenation.
 * I suspect that the minimum acceptable hyphenation for 13-digit ISBNs would be 978-xxxxxxxxx-x. If hyphens are to be inserted into the center group, they should be inserted correctly.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The dashes are not there for decoration" – they pretty much are. ISBNs are barcode numbers, designed to be read by computers, not by humans. Dividing the code into "country of publication, publisher, book number, and a checknumber" serves no practical purpose, as 99% of readers, frankly, aren't going to give a shit about that because those details are easier to identify from the copyright page of a book than by deciphering some gimmicky number. The place of publication and the publisher should be included in the citation anyway, the book number and check number are of no value whatsoever to anyone except the database that stores the codes. WP:ISBN may call hyphens "meaningful", but I disagree: humans aren't robots, they don't waste time translating barcodes. There is no MOS-standard with regards ISBN format, and AWB is not the decider – even if you coded some ISBN for AWB parser yourself (which represents a conflict of interest here), it cannot be enforced and even Wiki software strips all hyphens for the Special:BookSources anyway. In line with WP:ENGVAR guidelines, the original formatting or editor should be respected, IMO. So if he put none, none it is; but if they are used then they need to be in the right place, naturally.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Perhaps the hyphens serve no purpose at Wikipedia. Yes, on the most current A-class review I have going, it was pointed out I needed to put a location for each bibliography. That being the case, maybe the AWB should just be taking all the hyphens out. After this, I'm sure not going to worry about the hyphens. Frees me up to check more important issues. — Maile  (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You will find other content writers who regard locations as not worth the candle, so they take them all out (not some, all). MarcusBritish is quite right to point out that WP:ISBN is not part of the MOS, it is in the help pages.  I agree that the original formatting of an article should be followed, but that doesn't mean mistakes are OK.  'No hyphens' is fine; 'hyphens in the right places' is fine; 'make the placing up' or a mix of with and without hyphens, is not. We are not here to make rules up when the ISBN organisation mandates a perfectly good set.  Mr Stephen (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to say, though not because I disbelieve you, that is, in all my time on Wiki I have never seen anyone removing publisher locations from references – it's not some standard unique to us, but to authors and academics citing for books, researchers and University students worldwide; it's a recognised practice for most referencing systems – so it makes no sense to me that anyone would do that here. And I sincerely hope when you catch them at it you revert and warn them, as such behaviour is surely worthy of admin intervention if it persists. The point of having the location is to make it easier for people to access the title, especially if it is out of print or very old and needs searching for, country of origin clearly helps, removing it clearly prevents this and disrupts Wiki's aims.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 14:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, here or here for instance. The editor in question has taken a large number of articles to GA/FA. Unfortunately he is currently blocked (or was earlier today) so can't argue the case. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate? No. He's the biggest shit-stirrer on Wiki, and has more "fanboys" and sycophants creating a shield of immunity around him than a Scout master. I don't consider the number of GA/FAs anyone does good reason to accept their personal method of doing things alone, we have consensus and referenced from the real world for deciding that, and the number of referencing systems in the world that require location is a better example. That particular editor has always been a law unto himself, so he's probably not the best example to give with regards to good practices on wiki. Reverting his location removals is more likely to get you a series of f-bombs than a civil discussion, because his mind lacks social discourse skills, but I'd still do it.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 00:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an unfortunate off-topic post (in addition to being a personal attack on another editor, who knows the FA standards quite thoroughly). Please review WP:TALK and keep personalization off this page (which suffers quite regularly from WP:TLDR and off-topic unhelpful ranting).   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh looky, one of Wiki's prestigious harassment-enablers pops up quicker than a love-stricken Belieber defending their bad-boy, even after he spits in people's faces. Someone clearly has no life by searching for "attacks" (the comment was actually an observation, in this case, Sandy being the type to politicise trivial remarks to their own one-sided view) on their BFF to counter-attack. Your buddy also masters WP:GAME quite thoroughly, and if I thought your trite opinion worthy of respect I'd surely ask for it, however I'm selectively ignorant when it comes to the widespread manipulation and malignancy practised by certain editors across wiki. If this is an "off-topic" post, your responses to it merely compound that fact. I recommend you find another shit-storm to create, old bean. And FYI "TLDR" is a childish term, used by illiterate trolls from 4chan-esque boards, not by mature or intelligent readers. It is a brain-rotting ideal I shall never adopt this side of my funeral, but just for you I'll aim to have "TLDR" chiselled on my headstone after the epitaph. If you don't like the full-flavour and potential of the English language, you're most welcome to try another one.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we please close out this discussion? Mr. Stephen,  I'm not going to undo what you did to the ISBNs.  The idea is to get the article ready for higher classification. Marcus, please drop the stick. It serves no purpose to getting this article ready. Thank you all for your enthusiasm, but we need to move on. Please. — Maile  (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The birthdate issue
I have combined a citation into Cite #2 to expand the note re Murphy's birthdate of 1925. For the record, Audie's son Terry Murphy is President of the Audie Murphy Research Foundation. Both the biographical sketch and Murphy family tree give Audie's year of birth as 1925. And Terry has appropriately sourced the information. He knows when his own father was born. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A-Class status and comments
This article has now reached A-class status, and the next step is FAC. I would just like to mention that A-class was made possible by numerous editors, and especially those dedicated and knowledgeable editors at WP Military History. Being involved with that project in bringing this article up to code has been a top-notch experience. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, I really like the article. Since we're headed to FAC and we've had problems with edit wars in the past, I've watchlisted the article, and I'm not averse to protecting or blocking if necessary, though my guess is that neither will be necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I look forward to the next step towards FAC. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Bronze Star Medals awarded (Audie Murphy Memorial site)
Murphy was awarded 2 Bronze Star Medals (first one with the "V" Device and second one w/o the "V" Device). The Military Times Hall of Valor reference award citations are incorrect and should be not used for any of his awards: 1. Hall of Valor uses Combat "V" (Navy/Marine) instead of "V" Device (Army) for both of their two Bronze Star citations for Murphy. 2. Hall of Valor's 2nd Bronze Star award citation for Murphy has the Combat "V" ("V" Device) when the "V" Device is not authorized in the original Bronze Star Medal award citation issued to Murphy in 1954 for 1944.YahwehSaves (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Come on dipstick, you know the policies of Wiki by now - do not change content that is already referenced without providing a new source, as this makes the existing reference inaccurate and blows the article. You've been making these claims for months and it is becoming tiresome, and you are starting to annoy editors by screwing up A-class content. Wiki policy has specific requirements regarding the provision of sources, and your "say so" that a certain source is "no good" is not one of them. From now on, to prevent further disruption to the article, please post your sources here on the discussion page for review so that they can be assessed and approved before committing them to the article. If you're going to act like a bull in a china shop, then we're going to have to ask you to follow these conditions to prevent further controversial changes to the content. If you don't do that, I'll have the matter raised further and allow consensus to enforce these requirements to safeguard the article from your poorly-handled edits. A lot of work has gone into this article, I don't intend to watch you try to mess it up, yet again, with your obsessive and generally destructive "tweaking" habits. Go read WP:V, and this time, follow it!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 09:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sock puppetry is also involved here. The edits by are also YahwehSaves. And it certainly looks like the socking was deliberate, rather than just "oh, I forgot to sign in..." I had just reverted YahwehSave's unsourced edit, and two hours later, Sock puppet edit reinserted essentially the same information, making it look like YahwehSaves did not do a revert. — Maile  (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Audie Murphy Memorial Site (in article Infobox which has Murphy's medals & citations) as you both know and ignore for some reason (to call me names...) for one shows the two Bronze Star Medals with citations, the first one with the "V" Device the 2nd one (awarded to Capt. Murphy on December 11, 1954) without the "V" Device authorization which is different than the Hall of Valor's citation, says Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" instead of "V" Device, assuming the V device was/is authorized when it isn't.YahwehSaves (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC


 * I have done some minor tweaking to rectify the minor incongruity regarding the "V"-Device. There was no need to go into verbose "this was his first" then "this was his second (with oak leaf cluster)" rewrites, as you were doing, as it was over the top. If an Oak leaf cluster serves in lieu of a second award, visually, and is added to the first medal, then you need only mention the OLC. That should close the matter.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 23:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

3. The Hall of Valor site made up their own 2 Bronze Star citations for Murphy, this can be checked at the Murphy website (1st BSM, General Orders and 2nd BSM, 1954 award letter): "The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Bronze Star Medal with the Combat "V" ". "The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting a Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster in lieu of a Second Award of the Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" " The GO for the first BSM has no Presidential presentation or the "V" Device which was issued to Murphy later on since the action was valorous. The 1954 award letter has no Presidential introduction to Murphy for the 2nd BSM which says to Capt. Murphy, "You have been awarded the "Bronze Star Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster)" which is opposite what Murphy article says ("Murphy was also awarded a Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for the Bronze Star"). The 2nd BSM according to Army award regulations ("for exemplary conduct in ground combat") required a WW2 CIB award and can be applied for as evidently Murphy did in 1954. No "V" Device is authorized for 2nd BSM since its not for valor.YahwehSaves (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of words here, but no conclusion.. are you simply moaning for the sake of it? What is your point? Where are your sources? If you're going to present an argument, at least construct it in a fashion that makes sense, i.e. state which part of the ARTICLE is incorrect, they state WHY it is incorrect, then how it could be FIXED, and include your SOURCES which SUPPORT your dispute. Then we'll look at them and consider your point. You have to be objective if you want to get a point across, not prattling random quotes.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 01:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The page YahwehSaves refers to on the Audie Murphy website is user generated, and THAT is not credible on Wikipedia. Someone with YahwehSaves' history on lack of sourcing does not have any credibility on what is, or isn't, a good source. All I see here is a returning pattern of disruptive editing. Speaking of which, this article reached A-class status on July 27, 2013, time 03.27. 07.02 on July 27, YahwehSaves was trying to stir things up, Edited for rewording. You are very predictable, YahwehSaves. When a lot of real work and research is to be done, you are not the one to do it.  You come along later and disrupt and dismantle.  YahwehSaves, your edit history speaks for itself.— Maile  (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why, in this photo, Murphy's Bronze Star Medal does not include the Oak Leaf Cluster to indicate that he received two, even though his Silver Star and Purple Heart are marked with OLCs from subsequent awards?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though he was entitled to the Oak Leaf Cluster in connection with his prior award of the Combat Infantryman Badge, he had never received it. The Army discovered their error and corrected it in 1954. Roam41 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there some online sourcing you can link us to for that? — Maile (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is some information showing the cluster was connected to the Combat Infantryman Badge and that the CIB was awarded late. Simpson I know the page at the Murphy Website is user generated and I agree it is not a valid Wikipedia source. However, for the purpose of simply answering the question about the missing cluster in the photo, I assumed the information was correct and the award was not given until 1954. At Murphy's request, the Army made a duplicate set of medals for him during the same year and it is likely that is when the error was discovered. (Simpson page 276) Roam41 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added an inline citation with what you have provided on the Simpson book. Since  was the one who noticed this and has been doing the latest wording on this, he can adjust as he sees fit. And don't get me wrong about the Audie Murphy Website.  It's a fan's dream come true. If, for instance, they scan a copy of an actual document onto the website, I think that is verifiable.  When it's just user-typed, that's where it comes into question for Wikipedia. — Maile  (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no BSM error by the Army or BSM citation was lost by the Army or 2 awards awarded by Special Orders 39 (Simpson, CIB&BSM). Article Murphy photo shows no "V" Device and BSM oak leaf cluster on Murphy's uniform: The "V" Device (Army) was introduced and made retroactive in 1945, evidently after March 4, 1945 (first Murphy BSM, GO#84, awarded w/o "V"). The Bronze Star Medal awarded to all WW2 personnel who got the CIB (Special Orders 39, 61 soldiers including Murphy mentioned in the article Anzio section) wasn't implemented until September 10, 1947 (AR 600-45; AR 600-8-22, P. 42, (2) (3)), retroactive from December 7, 1941 to September 3, 1945 and had/has to be applied for. This site here has the two correct Bronze Star Medal citations (GO# 84, March 4, 1945 and Letter Orders, December 11, 1954,  rather than the Hall of Valor site (has no Letter Orders of December 11, 1954)  that gives two incorrect BSM citations (two citation "Combat "V"s") - If 2nd BSM was for valor (with "V" Device; "Combat V" is used on Navy/Marine citations, not any Army citations) and not connected with the CIB it would have a GO# instead of Letter Orders (The Institute of Heraldry, 1947 BSM, Background (c.) ).  YahwehSaves (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I still don't understand what you're driving at. Can you please relate to the article, explaining what you see as being incorrect, and how you think it should be corrected, using what sources. There is a lack of expert knowledge on U.S. decorations when writing this article, and given the disputes over sources I think everyone needs to be clear on what sentences in the article they feel are not supported by reliable sources. Throwing 4 sources without context is not helpful, you need to break it down more, in point form, listing one fault at a time, specifically quoting from the article sentences or sources that appear to be wrong, and then stating why, with a proposed correction and sources to back them up. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 00:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Article: Anzio: 2 Bronze Star Medals, changes w/o incorrect (gave reasons above) Hall of Valor and Simpson references [#50, #52] / [#49, Graham, 1989, p. 59 - don't know what he says and if its correct?]:
 * 1) For this action he received the Bronze Star with "V" Device [49] [50] > For this action he received the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.
 * 2) ...including Murphy, were awarded the Combat Infantry Badge on May 8. [51] Murphy was also awarded a Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for his Bronze Star. [52] [50] > ...including Murphy, were awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge on May 8 [51] and the Bronze Star Medal.
 * (1, Hall of Valor citation uses incorrect and unauthorized "Combat "V"" for the Army citation. The "Combat "V" is the Navy-Marine Combat Distinguishing Device.; Marine Combat "V" SecNavInst 16.50.1H)
 * (2, Hall of Valor citation uses unauthorized Combat "V". Citation has no date awarded, GO#, or Letter Orders (Murphy, Dec. 11, 1954) for 2nd BSM award. "V" Device ("V" device) is not authorized for this 1947 implemented WW2 only BSM (had Letter Orders, no GO#) that goes with this WW2 only CIB (12/7/41 to 9/3/45)
 * (2, Simpson incorrectly says Special Orders 39 (CIB only, awarded May 8, 1944) has two awards (CIB/OLC) for Murphy (his 2nd BSM w/o "V" device was awarded 12/11/1954 by Letter Orders); and olc is a device issued to denote a 2nd BSM; olc is not considered an/the award)
 * Article: Southern and southeastern France: The 3rd and 36th infantries took another 500 prisoners in the city on August 29. [54] The actions of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment that day earned them the Presidential Unit Citation. Murphy, for his part in the event, was included as one of the soldiers who received the citation. [61] > The 3rd and 36th divisions took another 500 prisoners in the city on August 29. [54] The actions of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment during three days of continuous battle earned them the Presidential Unit Citation. Murphy, for his part in the battle, was included as one of the soldiers who received the citation and awarded the Presidential Unit Citation Emblem. [61]
 * Article: Northeastern France: Murphy's actions earned him the Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for his Silver Star [68] > Murphy's actions earned him an oak leaf cluster for his Silver Star [68, what does it actually say?].
 * The injury earned Murphy the First Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for his Purple Heart [75] [64] > The injury earned Murphy an oak leaf cluster for his Purple Heart. [75, what's it actually say?] [64, doesn't say, "Bronze" Oak Leaf Cluster]
 * Article: Colmar Pocket: Murphy was wounded in both legs, earning him a Second Oak Leaf Cluster for his Purple Heart. [83] > Murphy was wounded in both legs, earning him a second oak leaf cluster for his Purple Heart [83, what does it actually say?]
 * The 3rd Infantry Division was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its actions at the Colmar Pocket, giving Murphy a Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for the emblem [61] > The 3rd Infantry Division was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for their actions at the Colmar Pocket, entitling Murphy to an oak leaf cluster for his Presidential Unit Citation Emblem [61]YahwehSaves (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Addressing these one-by-one:
 * Firstly, a number of these issues ask, "what does it actually say?" against the current source. You can't ask for a change of content if you haven't first read the citations and proven them to be wrong, that's just messing editors around and not how Wiki works. You need to read the sources before you can dispute them logically.
 * "64, doesn't say, "Bronze" Oak Leaf Cluster" – according to Oak Leaf Cluster it can be either bronze or silver. Murphy would have to have received 5 Purple Hearts already to get a silver one, therefore we can deduce that up to his fourth the device would have to have been bronze. Doesn't matter that the source doesn't say that, it's a fact relating to the OLC per se. The same goes for for any other OLC, colour is determined by number, the sources may assume readers know this and exclude this detail as minor, Wiki needs to be more clear for non-American readers.
 * Adding "...for his Presidential Unit Citation Emblem" is just a repetition of the wording in the first clause of the same sentence and isn't needed, it's clear enough that the emblem is the physical representation of the PUC.
 * "15th Infantry Regiment during three days of continuous battle" – needs a source confirming they were in battle for the full 3 days of August 27–29  and not just the 29th as the article implies.
 * Adding "...and awarded the Presidential Unit Citation Emblem". As above, repetition, too wordy, already clear as is.
 * I don't see the need to apply any of these, they only seek to reword stuff and wouldn't improve the article.
 * Can you use bullet-points, as I have done, to separate the different points, in future. I've taken the liberty of editing your comment above, so you can see from example of how to use markup to do this. Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 23:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hall of Valor citations [50], 2 BSM's and Legion of Merit, has the President presenting these medals which is false information.
 * "15th Infantry Regiment during three days of continuous battle - the source does confirm "from 27-29 August 1944". [51] One day, August 29, is false information.
 * > Murphy's actions earned him a second Silver Star (bronze oak leaf cluster)
 * > The injury earned Murphy his second Purple Heart (bronze oak leaf cluster)
 * > Murphy was wounded in both legs, earning him his third Purple Heart (second bronze oak leaf cluster)
 * > entitling Murphy to a bronze oak leaf cluster for his unit citation emblem.

Though the Army awards manual (2006) capitalizes the OLC, the DoD awards manual (2010) does not capitalize the olc. I think this improves the article.YahwehSaves (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no standardisation regarding the term "Oak Leaf Clusters" in the WP:MOS or WP:MILMOS, though you can't expect it to cover everything. Medal names are usually treated as proper nouns, but as the OLC is more a generic device, I don't know. I think it's not that important, and should be handled in accordance with WP:ENGVAR, in that the initial format should be respected, on in this case given that a major rewrite has recently taken place, the editor who conducted that rewrite should have their preference applied, in which case I'll leave it to User:Maile66 to determine whether they prefer using Army awards manual capitalisation, or DOD awards manual non-capitalised style.
 * I can't look into the 15th Infantry Reg. dispute myself, I don't have access to the sources used and cited. Going to have to leave it to Maile66, again, to check the sources in that paragraph and double-check the citations are accurate regarding the dates the 15th Inf. was involved in combat. Maile66, can you please look into that so we don't have an ugly Verify source template mid-article? Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The 2010 DoD Manual does capitalize OLC. When speaking of oak leaf clusters in general terms they do not, but when using the term in reference to being an authorized device it is always capitalized. Roam41 (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds a like the way we use titles, i.e. "General Wellington" vs "Wellington was a general". I was thinking about that earlier, but given the way medal names are always capitalised, I think having a mix of caps and non-caps for OLC throughout an article would look messy, and needs to be one or the other for readability.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 17:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Simpson (page 442) states that the PUC was awarded for the action between Aug 27 and 29. The article's current source says the same thing. I agree the words should be changed to reflect that. Right now the article says the award was for "that day". It's obvious it was just an unintentional error, but it can be repaired with very minor editing. Roam41 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for verifying that. I've updated the sentence slightly, if anyone feels the wording is still unclear do say. I didn't use YahwehSaves' "during three days of continuous battle" suggestion, as it seemed like another wordy repetition given that the dates 27–29 are already given in the paragraph.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 18:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was refering OLC/olc to what I wrote above, "bronze oak leaf cluster" vs Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster. DoD Manual, p. 52, "An oak-leaf cluster is worn to denote award of a second...". "Oak-leaf clusters are authorized for wear on..."
 * Murphy's actions earned him another or a second Silver Star seems more accurate than saying "Murphy's actions earned him the Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for his Silver Star" in the article. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I think as it stands now at A-class level the current wording is fine. Given that the article is aiming to reach FA-class I think there will be the need to briefly explain what an Oak Leaf Cluster or a "V- Device is, within the context of the article rather than an aside, because these devices are not common knowledge. At FA level there is need to bear in mind WP:POPE, whilst avoiding WP:Fancruft, which means that adding a short sentence explaining the purpose of an OLC or "V" when first mentioned is going to be required but to avoid going off on a tangent. For now let's leave it as a "to do" because it's likely to make the article too repetitive and potentially affects accuracy, because although he does get awarded a second Star, he displays an OLC in its place. This background info. needs to be carefully added somehow but without affecting readability.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 02:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "Oak Leaf Cluster" is capitalized on page 52 of the DoD Manual, so that can't be the page you are talking about. However, all instances using small letters in the Manual are as I stated above. They are used when talking about OLCs in general terms.  Our Wikipedia article only refers to Murphy's authorized presented device and should be capitalized. Roam41 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The President is the Commander-in-Chief. Citations tend to deal in "elevated" terminology and are not designed to suggest that the President was physically present for the ceremony. General Patch put the Medal of Honor around Murphy's neck; that does suggest that Harry Truman traveled to Salzburg. Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Valor isn't accurate, uses the incorrect Combat "V" for its Army citations instead of the correct "V" Device". It also has its citations with the President presenting the different medals which means the President signed the citation. Other than MOH, the accurate citations don't say the President presents, the citations are signed by generals.YahwehSaves (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the "Combat 'V'" as an issue. I read the "V" Device article and understand that "'V' Device" is the Army and Airforce term and "Combat 'V'" the Naval term, but it really only comes down to terminology. That doesn't make Hall of Valor "wrong" because, essentially, the award is still the same thing, whatever you call it: a bronze letter "V" with the same function whatever the branch.
 * With regards the citation, President, etc.. I have no idea what you're talking about, need you to give more detail with quotes, links to specific sources, whatever, bearing in mind I'm not American so I don't know what the procedure is when awards are issued.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 02:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Naval "V" device has more application to it besides being just for valor to get it from the Army. Also, the "V" device isn't an award or decoration nor is the oak leaf cluster though some may disagree.
 * The Hall of Valor doesn't seem to know or care what they are doing for citations. I gave the references, en.ww2awards.com, for the 2 Bronze Star Medal citations which are the same citations given at the Murphy site. The difference is the Hall of Valor says the Presidents presents the BSM vs the BSM and other citations other than MOH say By Direction of the President... and signed by a general.YahwehSaves (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's all well and good, but this Wiki article makes no mention of who presented Murphy with his medals, so that information is no relevant to us. The references are used to support the dates/reasons he was awarded. If Wiki was claiming that some President presented the medals and cited Hall or Valor then we might have an issue that could be disputed. But seeing as you're not disputing the other information provided by that site, i.e. the dates/reasons, there's nothing to fix here. Also, the application of Naval "V" may differ, but again, it looks the same, so isn't that much of a concern.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 03:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

YahwehSaves, just about all of your issues here boil down to the fact that you want everything changed to reflect the information posted on the Murphy Website regarding the Bronze Star. You are just insistent that the information there be used and have basically spent the last several days attempting various ways to shoehorn it in. Your new source simply took their info from the AM Website, as you have noted. Credit is also given on the bottom of their page. Here is the problem. The orders and citation for the Bronze Star on the AM Website are user generated. I’m not sure you understand what this means. Someone apparently had a copy of the actual medal orders and typed up their own version to post. This makes it a user generated facsimile, which is unusable for our purposes. Do I believe this copy of the orders is accurate? Personally, I do, but that doesn’t make any difference. We have to source the article following Wikipedia’s rules even if it limits us and it often does. At this time, it means leaving some of the minute detail about Murphy’s Bronze Medal out of the main article. Even if the information was usable, I’m not sure adding it in would be particularly beneficial. Not every detail can or should be included. We aren’t writing a book, just an overview of the subject. What matters are the stories of how the medals were earned. Details about when they were presented are quite secondary and perhaps even irrelevant. I’m sure other Wikipedia pages are more lenient about the sourcing, but the Audie Murphy page is currently under more stringent guidelines because Maile has been struggling to bring it up to FA (Featured Article) status. This is why the rule about user generated material needs to be followed most carefully, even if it is frustrating. Roam41 (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Induction
Induction is the correct term. It refers to the process of physically entering the service. Enlistment has to do with signing the papers - which typically doesn't happen on the same day as induction. So... a person either enlists or is conscripted into service (if they are to enter the service), and the process of transitioning from civilian to military status is "induction." Likewise, the date one enters service is called the "induction date", and it is that date from which military begins counting seniority. Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you need to come up with another reference because the cited ref reads "enlisted."-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind using "enlisted" if that's what the source says. I was just correcting your explanation. Induction isn't specific to conscription, and an enlistment date isn't necessarily the same date as an induction date. If the source says "enlisted" - then so should we. Rklawton (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Murphy enlisted on June 29 (he signed the enlistment papers on June 29, 1942) at the Greensville post office: He entered the Army on June 30, which would be part of his enlistment record wouldn't it?YahwehSaves (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article says "Murphy enlisted in Greensville on June 20 at the Post Office Building". [#12] source, is for the post office only, not enlistment date.
 * Then it states his physical examine height and weight details and source [13] "Enlistment Record for Audie Leon Murphy. US Army. June 29--30, 1942."
 * "wouldn't it?" – if you don't know, you shouldn't be editing the article at a guess. Verify claims before making changes to content.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 01:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking the question for myself since I know he enlisted on "June 29" (signed Army enlistment form) at Greensville, TX (Audie Murphy site official Army document) instead of June 20 and he entered the Army on June 30 (Army induction date; Audie Murphy site date of service) at Dallas, Texas (Medal of Honor citation- "entered service at Dallas, Texas"). Murphy didn't apply for working at the Greenville post office, so why is June 20 accepted and allowed as his enlistment date when source [12] only covers the post office?YahwehSaves (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The source (#12) reads "Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of World War II enlisted on June 20, 1942", therefore you cannot change it to June 29 and still expect to cite the same source. The article does not imply that he wanted to work for the post office, don't know why you even bothered to say that.
 * Clearly, from the Service Documents, the day he enlisted (20th) and the day he first reported for duty (29th) are different, he is noted as being a Private from the 30th. It's simply a matter of him going to the Post Office on the 20th and being told "report to X place for a physical on 29th", I gather, until then the enlistment was more an "in principle" decision until his physical condition was assessed; I very much doubt they perform medical examinations in a public Post Office. Would that make sense to you? Enlist – physical – oath. They're all different dates. 20th – 29th – 30th, as evidenced by the forms he signed at each stage. Enlistment clearly involves more than one "sign here, you're in" step as to seem to think. Read rklawton's comments above regarding "induction" vs "enlistment". We may need a better source than the one currently cited in #12 if the wording I quoted from it is inaccurate or misleading, especially for FA level, when accuracy becomes more important for verifiability.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 07:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this, pg 5, Murphy executed his oath of enlistment on 30 June 1942 at Dallas, Texas. Leading to that, pg 2 shows that his sister certified his age on 26 June 1942; there is no way he enlisted prior to that certification. Pg 3 is his enlistment record (WDAGO Form 22), which might more properly be thought of as an application for enlistment; it was signed by Murphy on 29 June in Greenville and verified on 30 June in Dallas. Note he enlisted for "Infantry (Parachute Troops)." Later on 30 June, still in Dallas, he passed his physical (with minimum tuberculosis!). My conclusion: Murphy went to the post office in Greenville on 20 June and talked to the recruiting sergeant, who told him what he needed in the way of paperwork. Murphy then asked his sister to certify his incorrect birth date; she did. On 29 June, Murphy filled out his application for enlistment and was provisionally accepted by the recruiting sergeant. He "got on a bus" for Dallas and, on 30 June, took and signed his oath. I'm sure I'm not the first to look at the file, but it contains a lot of neat stuff, like the orders for his medals. Start at this page to access all twelve "folders."-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Audie Murphy site PDF comes from the NARA (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration). I think they obtained the whole mass of it on a digital file, broke it up and put it on the website. It's full of fascinating stuff, all right. My experience of this year is that this, along with everything else about Audie Murphy's life and military career, is so full of contradictory dates (at the very least) that you could get dizzy. Possibly because 70 years has passed in the meantime.  It's fun to look at, that's for sure.  There's a lot missing. But maybe the government did well to compile this.  In its way, it makes reconstructing Murphy's life an interesting adventure, doesn't it?— Maile  (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does. When Murphy applied for his commission in the TX NG, he said he was at Camp Wolters from 20 June 1942. Arrrrrgh! And there is -- or was before the fire -- one of these for every soldier?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim, let me put another perspective on this. "Enlisted" and "inducted" are military-geek-speak and mean different things to whoever is reading them, or speaking them. I don't suppose you are a veteran of the US military, or even have relatives who have been, and don't know which decade you belong to in that respect.  I think it's a given that no one posting here was old enough when Murphy signed up to remember first-hand how the process went. We weren't there at that post office when Audie walked in.  But I can give you a pretty fair idea in the decades following World War II.


 * Can't tell you how it is now. But in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, I've had a ton of family and friends who were in the military.  "Enlisted" and "inducted"  haven't been the terms any of them used.  It's either "I signed up" or "I joined". In those decades, you went up to your local Army "recruiter", which could be one lone uniformed person sitting at a table in a rented store front, at a table in front of a grocery store, in a post office, in a federal building. You could get pamphlets, yes.  But you could also "sign up" right then and there.  That doesn't mean you went right into the rest of the process.  Generally, that meant you then went home to your family and friends, told them what you'd done, and then put your affairs into order.  It could be days or weeks before you actually got on that bus to complete the process.  Military recruiters used to go to high schools and sign up young people in their senior year, but they didn't actually take their physical and go through the rest until they graduated. Did they "enlist"?  They "signed up", which to them meant the same thing.  But whatever they signed does not mean it was the same thing as the official "Enlistment Record", with a date that was on it the day they showed up for the rest.


 * One thing we know for sure from the Audie Murphy PDF link above is that Corrine Burns signed a government form, an affidavit, on June 26, 1942. And therein lies more questions. Maybe Audie brought that to Corrine on June 20, but she wanted to think it over for a few days, seeing as how she was going to sign her name to a fib.  Maybe she didn't have time to deal with it then, because she had her own family to handle. Or maybe because she wasn't living in a city with a notary on every corner, she had to wait until she could find a notary.  And she would have had to have signed that in the presence of a notary. But that doesn't mean nothing happened on June 20.  It just means the paperwork didn't make it through the decades to get in the pile NARA released.  Yeah, somebody typed up the Enlistment Record as June 30, and it was signed the day before on June 29.  How do you sign something the day before it's typed up? It wasn't Audie sitting at the typewriter.  He may have verbally given the information on June 20 - we don't know - and it was ready for him to sign on June 29.


 * Notice how at the bottom it says "Verified at Dallas, Texas". That isn't even the same county as Camp Wolters, or even the next county over.  When was it verified?  Did Audie fill out paperwork giving them the basic information that they had to verify before he could be accepted? Put it this way.  The military is a job.  Did you ever fill out an application for a job, but didn't know until later if you were accepted?  And if you are accepted, then the Personnel Department begins the official paperwork.  But from your perspective, when you applied for the job, that's the day you "signed up" for the job. Did you happen to notice that Audie wasn't issued military clothing until July 10?  Don't they usually issue that on the first day?


 * I'm just saying we don't know for sure, and we may never know for sure, the series of events that happened from that day at the Greenville post office on June 20, and the day he was issued his military clothing on July 10. That's a long time that is not accounted for in those documents.  Cameras didn't date stamp in those days, even if the Murphy family has a photo, and Audie wasn't famous so the newspaper wouldn't have recorded what he did at the post office.  The information that says he "enlisted" on June 20 came from the Texas Historical Commission on a page about the designation of that post office as a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which is run by the United States government. The usual process there, is for the THC just to copy verbatim what they are given by the US government NRHP listing.  That doesn't mean that's when the "Enlistment Record" was typed up.  He could have put in an application for enlistment, but the information had to be verified.  Perhaps part of that verification was the statement Corrine Burns signed.


 * We can argue this for the next 50 years, and the only way to prove either direction is for those missing documents to show up. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Murphy enlistment record shows his date of enlistment is "June 30, 1942" His date of entry into active service is "June 30, 1942". His place of entry into service is Dallas, Texas. June 20 is incorrect for his enlistment date in the article. He wasn't inducted, there is no date of induction.YahwehSaves (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was only in the Army for twenty-four years.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. That makes you the expert among us, as far as I know. — Maile  (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim in Georgia, I just figured out your account name. Georgia...army...vet. — Maile  (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy (copied from talk page)

 * Note. This was left on my talk page. There is much edit and talk page history concerning the editor I reverted. What I reverted  was an edit that referenced the above thread in the edit summary.  This thread has more use here. — Maile  (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The edits you reverted were only style. They do not require sources as you claimed in your edit summary. Reverting edits on the grounds that they are unnecessary or superficial is highly inappropriate. Please reconsider your actions. Rklawton (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see the diff on what I reverted: YahwehSaves edit.
 * original text: "Murphy had wanted to be a soldier all his youth"
 * YS change: "Murphy, during much of his youth, hoped to become a soldier"
 * original text: "When he heard the news of Japan's December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor"
 * YS change: "When he heard the news of the December 7 attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan"
 * original text:"Due to his slight build, his company commander thought he was too small to be in the infantry,"
 * YS change: "His company commander thought he wasn't large and built enough to serve in the infantry". I'm not even sure that's good English, but I am pretty sure the original sentence was honed in the A-class review.
 * original text: "at the Post Office Building, which was added to the NRHP in 1974."
 * YS change: "at the Post Office Building (it was added to the NRHP in 1974)." Again, I'm not sure taking a complete sentence and changing it by putting half of it in parenthesis is A-class editing.
 * original text: "Assigned to the infantry, during basic training at Camp Wolters, Texas, Murphy earned the Marksman Badge"
 * YS change "During his basic training at Camp Wolters, Texas,, Murphy was awarded the Marksman Badge" Adding, you notice, an extra comma in the wrong place.
 * original text: "While participating in a close-order drill during that hot Texas summer, he passed out."
 * YS change: "Once, while participating in a close-order drill, he passed out from the heat"
 * original text: "Regardless, Murphy insisted on becoming a combat soldier."
 * YS change: "However, Murphy was determined enough to become a combat infantryman."  What???
 * original text: "He subsequently completed the 13-week basic training course, and in October he was given leave to visit his family. At the end of his leave, he was sent to Fort Meade, Maryland"
 * YS change: "He subsequently completed the 13-week basic training course in October. He was given a leave and visited his family. After his leave was over, he was ordered to Fort Meade, Maryland "
 * And, yes, he added the sentence "He entered the Army on June 30." without sourcing it. He states in the edit summary that YOU are the source of the June 30 date: "Added he entered the Army on June 30, based on Induction comments made by Rklawton (talk) " I don't see that you mentioned June 30 in your comments in that thread. This is the best he could do on sourcing, is saying you said something, but you didn't? As of this writing, I don't see "entered the Army on June 30" mentioned by anyone but YS..
 * What are you really saying, that you don't think this article should be kept at A-class level? You can call my revert whatever you want.  But these were not edits that improved the article. At best, they were style. I don't see the point in any of those edits - they added nothing to the article. There is the argument to be made that these are not A-class edits. But since you have previously participated on the article, you are probably aware that we have in the past had copyvio issues with this editor, copyvio issues that the editor didn't seem to understand there was anything wrong with. Were there copyvio issues in this edit?  You are welcome to check them, very tediously against every bit of text on the websites or books this editor favors.  But, frankly, I'm a little jittery about copyvio creeping into this article again. And, again, as mentioned many times on this talk page, this editor made so many disruptive and erroneous edits in their March 2013 blitz that it took a long time and the A-class review to clean it all up. With this editor, you have to check every word, every punctuation, every possible incident of copyvio. And you can see from the thread above about the Bronze Star that the conversation can go around in circles for days, and ending up in the same place. So, please do not come down on me like the hammer of the gods.  My aim is to keep this at A-class level until it goes to FAC.  — Maile  (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of those edits changed verbs from passive to active - thereby improving the article's readability. Your mass reversion undid these beneficial changes. Rklawton (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rklawton, I just wanted to remind you that a year ago you were so exasperated with the editor in question and his sockpuppet, you wanted him banned from Wikipedia. See Matt Urban It is the same person. I realize this might not change your  opinion on the current issue, but it might help to give you some context. Roam41 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some examples of WP:Tendentious editing however you look at it. Not going to go over-board here, but it doesn't help that the editor keeps rewriting sections that have been worked on, not so much in terms of wording, but in relation to sources. Some of the rewrites affect context, which makes citations look misquoted. The end result tends to hamper progression to the next review level, as it's not easy working with your right hand and not knowing what your left hand is doing. That said, if the article is being worked toward FA I think we need to see more evidence of that through regular progressive updates and additions, as I understand that an editor cannot claim immunity from reverts indefinitely, and must eventually give way to other contributors.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 21:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Dates
What happened before 29 Jun 42 is arguable. On 29 Jun 42 Murphy signed and Tech 4 Roy A Gann witnessed his Declaration of Applicant, (Folder 1, page 3). The top portion of the form was filled in by an unidentified person and dated 30 Jun 42. This probably would have happened after he took his oath because the Army would not want to expend a serial number (later service number) before the ednlistment was a fact. The fact that "Murphy's part" and "The Army's part" were completed in different counties would not have been an issue. On 30 Jun 42, Murphy was subjected to a physical, which he passed. Also on 30 Jun, he executed his oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States in the presence of Major B. H. Davis, who so certified (Folder 1, page 5). Did he hold up his hand and recite the oath? Probably, but it's the signing that counts. He became a private on 30 Jun by virtue of enlistment (Folder 3, page 5). He had his first immunization on 1 Jul 42 (Folder 3, page 3 and Folder 7, page 10) at Camp Wolters, TX. On 10 Jul he was admitted to the hospital at Camp Wolters after having fainted during drill (Folder 7, page 7). When he was admitted, he went through a clothing inventory (not issue) in Ward B-29 (Folder 1, page 7) The count of the items inventoried match what he would have been wearing, not what would have been in his basic clothing bag (Even back then, we may rest assured that the Army issued a soldier more than one pair of drawers). I don't know for certain when 20 Jun crept into the array of dates, but I submit that documents are most accurate that are executed closest to the date the events occurred. Audie Murphy enlisted in the United States Army on 30 June 1942.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  23:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on what you are saying, and the fact you are an Army veteran, I'm making a change in the article to reflect what you've said. And I'm removing the mention of the Greenville post office, because it doesn't fit in with that. The reference at the end of the paragraph is the Enlistment Record. — Maile  (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, even though it obvious to you and I, you forgot to mention here he enlisted in "Dallas, Texas" on June 30, 1942 since the article still has Greensville. YahwehSaves (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Dallas. Looking at the "Induction Record" in the above, the line directly above "Enlisted at..." says "Accepted for service at Greenville, Texas".  Whatever happened in Greenville as "accepted for service" is probably what the NRHP used as "enlisted". — Maile  (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting stats history
Don't know if this is new because everything is better on Labs, or if I just discovered how to use this. How you get to this, is go to the Page History link. Then click on Revision History Statistics. Here's the interesting stuff: Revision History Stats — Maile  (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Murder plea
Did Murphy plead "innocent" or "not guilty?" A lawyer I ain't, but I think the latter is more likely.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's phrased that way because the source used the word "innocent". Here Roam41 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That works. The cite in the article is to the off-line source.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  22:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC Audie Murphy v. Matt Urban medal count
"Most decorated soldier" or "One of the most decorated soldiers" has been an ongoing edit war with this article since its inception. Before we go to FAC, this needs to be settled on how to handle this.

There are conflicting opinions online as to who is the most decorated, Audie Murphy or Matt Urban. Both camps are ardent in favor of their hero, and both camps want their hero's Wikipedia article to be accurate on the count.

Murphy was hailed as "most decorated" before he was ever out of uniform. Matt Urban did not receive his Medal of Honor until 1980. The "when" of Urban's MoH does not matter. It's the total medal count.

Numbered lists are below. The Matt Urban list came from his article which does not seem to have all his medals listed. Please add medals to either list as appropriate and leave an appropriate edit summary. The automatic numbering is generated by the # to the left of the item. Please leave comments in the appropriate comments sections. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy medal count

 * Recent Texas Legislative Medal of Honor is not part of the below count


 * 1) Medal of Honor
 * 2) Distinguished Service Cross
 * 3) Silver Star
 * 4) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Silver Star
 * 5) Legion of Merit
 * 6) Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device
 * 7) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Bronze Star
 * 8) Purple Heart
 * 9) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Purple Heart
 * 10) Second Oak Leaf Cluster for Purple Heart
 * 11) Good Conduct Medal
 * 12) Distinguished Unit Emblem (Presidential Unit Citation or PUC)
 * 13) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Distinguished Unit Emblem (PUC)
 * 14) American Campaign Medal
 * 15) European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign (EAME) Medal


 * 16-20. Silver Star for EAME represents 5 separate medals


 * 1) First Bronze Service Star for European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
 * 2) Second Bronze Service Star for European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
 * 3) Third Bronze Service Star for European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
 * 4) Fourth Bronze Service Star for European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
 * 5) Bronze Arrowhead for European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
 * 6) World War II Victory Medal
 * 7) Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp
 * 8) Armed Forces Reserve Medal
 * 9) Combat Infantry Badge
 * 10) Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar
 * 11) Expert Badge with Bayonet Bar
 * 12) French Fourragere in Colors of the Croix de Guerre
 * 13) French Legion of Honor, Grade of Chevalier
 * 14) French Croix de Guerre With Silver Star
 * 15) French Croix de Guerre with Palm
 * 16) Medal of Liberated France
 * 17) Belgian Croix de Guerre 1940 Palm

Comments on Audie Murphy's medal count

 * What happened to the first oak leaf cluster for the Purple Heart? It jumps from basic award to second OLC.
 * Thanks for catching. Added the first. — Maile (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If specific campaigns are being counted (stars on campaign ribbon), the silver star on the EAME medal counts for five campaigns. It's not clear (if the campaigns are counted) whether we are talking about five or nine campaigns.
 * Distinguished Unit Emblem is the Distinguished Unit Citation
 * American Campaign Medal should be American Theater Medal.
 * Nos 25 and 26 are qualification badges. Should they count? --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Added Texas Legislative Medal of Honor, just awarded in 2013. Should this be part of the medal count? — Maile (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * #16 should be counted as 5 medals instead of one Roam41 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adjusted. — Maile (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Each silver star represents 5 bronze stars. That is why they count as 5.  Do you think you could clarify that in some way on the list?  Right now, even though the count has been corrected, it could be misinterpreted to mean he had 5 silver campaign stars which would actually equal 25.   I also think the badges should be put back in for the time being.  The CIB is combat related and probably should always be included.  The 2 other badges are for marksmanship.  Since they are on the Army's official list of awards for Murphy, I think they should remain on there for now. Roam41 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you would adjust both lists to accurately represent it as it should be. You seem to have a good grasp on what is correct on this.— Maile  (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Matt Urban medal count

 * OLC for PUC source: Matt Urban tombstone, Arlington National Cemetery
 * All others:


 * 1) Medal of Honor
 * 2) Silver Star
 * 3) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Silver Star
 * 4) Legion of Merit
 * 5) Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device
 * 6) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Bronze Star
 * 7) Second Leaf Cluster for Bronze Star
 * 8) Purple Heart
 * 9-13 Silver Oak Leaf Cluster for Purple Heart represents 5 separate medals
 * 1) Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster for Purple Heart
 * 2) Distinguished Unit Emblem (Presidential Unit Citation or PUC)
 * 3) First Oak Leaf Cluster for Distinguished Unit Emblem (PUC)
 * 4) American Defense Service Medal
 * 5) American Campaign Medal
 * 6) Combat Infantry Badge
 * 7) European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (EAME)
 * 21-25 One Silver Star for EAME  represents 5 separate medals
 * 1) First Bronze Service Star for EAME 
 * 2) World War II Victory Medal
 * 3) French Croix de Guerre With Bronze Star
 * 4) French Croix de Guerre
 * 5) Belgian fourragère

Comments on Matt Urban's medal count

 * In regards to a full listing of Matt Urban's medal count, it would be helpful if an editor could provide a credible (not user-generated) online source. I don't readily see that on Urban's Wikipedia article, which is really lacking in both details and sourcing. — Maile  (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of my comments on award names for Audie Murphy apply here, too.
 * EAME -- same comment on silver star (and the stars represent campaigns)
 * Qualification badges not listed. Urban must have the CIB as a minimum (it is shown on his article). --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Added CIB to Urban's list. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * #9 should count as 5 medals instead of one.
 * #16 should count as 5 medals instead of one.
 * See my comments below. I think the list should reflect the 2005 official medal count obtained by the Toledo Blade. Perhaps an asterisk for those medals? This is the only official list I can find and it matches Matt Urban's own claim of 29 medals. Roam41 (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Adjustments made accordingly. — Maile (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I noted above under Murphy's list, do you think you could clarify the star and OLC change somewhat? The count is now correct, but he did not have 5 silver OLCs for his Purple Heart, he just had one which represented 5 separate PH medals. The same goes for the silver campaign star. He just had one which represented 5 bronze campaign stars. I also think the CIB should be added back to the list. Roam41 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, we should probably add text along the lines of "representing a total of X separate awards." Thus a Purple Heart with a silver oak leaf cluster would represent a total of 6 separate awards. To wit, each bronze OLC represents a subsequent award, and a silver is used to represent five bronze OLCs. Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * I'm NPOV on the issue of who has the most medals, or if it's a dead-even tie between Murphy and Urban. Either way, there should be a verifiable defined list for both of them.— Maile (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also NPOV. The National Archives have Urban's (Urbanowitz's) personnel file, but it apparently has not been digitized. If we have an editor who can get to the reading room, he/she could review the file. Some of the items listed for both are not medals. The Combat Infantryman Badge is one example, as are the weapons qualification badges. The Presidential Unit Citation is granted to a unit, not an individual. The system is not as pure as we would probably like to believe; in Vietnam, I saw the citation awarding a Silver Start to a general who flew over a battle in a helicopter. Perhaps the best answer is an edit (on Murphy) reading "Both Murphy and Matt Urban have been lauded as being the most decorated American soldier" and the equivalent on Urban. (The existence of the Life magazine cover re Murphy is a fact, even if the statement is not.) The Air Force awards points for decorations for promotions (Weighted_Airman_Promotion_System) and I think the Army does as well, but to extrapolate that system to "Most Decorated" would be entering a minefield.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  21:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One of my favorites happened on Sept 16. And anymore, it's usually IP edits.  Publicly, most people take the easy route and refer to Murphy as the most decorated. Even Barack Obama. There are all sorts of websites assorted with Murphy, both military and civilian, and they all say Murphy is the most decorated.  Some people on one of those sites have made it their goal to get "most decorated" to stick permanently in this article's lead. I think we've kind of nailed the honors Murphy has received.  But Urban needs some research. And it would be best to have it clearly defined here exactly which honors and awards are counted towards "most decorated". The issue needs to be settled once and for all. — Maile  (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All of Matt Urban’s claims revolved around the fact that he had 29 medals. This is important. This was supposed to be one more than Audie had. The Army seemed to agree.  However, when the NY Times contacted the Army for Urban’s obituary in 1995 they were told each man had 29 medals.  Suddenly they were “tied”.
 * Here is a 2005 article from the Toledo Blade newspaper. The reporter actually managed to persuade the Army to give him an official list of both Murphy’s and Urban’s medals.   Audie’s total award count matches exactly what we have here on Wikipedia - 37.  Now count Urban’s medals.  You must count everything.  Add the EAME with each star separately and make sure the silver stars are counted as 5 when appropriate. I get a total of 29, exactly what Urban claimed.  Now count Audie’s in the same exact way.  Try to make it add up to less than or even equal to 29.   Unless I’m missing something, even by dropping the badges and the Reserve Medal,  Audie always has more.  It seems as if no one  ever looked at the official list, not even the Army. I believe Matt Urban’s claim was accurate. He did have 29 medals. The problem was no one had bothered to count Audie’s correctly or in the exact same manner and he always had more. This seems very clear to me.


 * The most decorated claim for Urban was corroborated by just one thing - the 1989 Guinness Book of World Records. First of all, the record was for “the most decorated soldier in history” which invalidates it right off. Neither Urban or Murphy can claim to hold that record. They list 25 medals for Urban.  If anyone wants to know what’s listed let me know.  I have the book. The following year Guinness dropped this category. Oddly enough, somewhere down the line they decided Audie was the most decorated (in history) again with 24 awards.  All I can think is this doesn’t say much for the accuracy and fact checking ability of the Guinness book people. Here


 * In 2009 a new engraved tombstone was placed on Urban’s grave by his family. On the back are listed 30 awards. Here It is the same list as the one in the Blade with 1 addition. An OLC has been added to the PUC.  Also the Croix de Guerre with Bronze Star is now a Croix de Guerre with Silver Star, but that doesn’t change the count.  As noted in the Blade article, Urban’s family had the option of having the Army review the list. They may have done that, which would explain the additional award. I agree it is important to have the most updated official list of Urban’s awards.  The list actually may have possibly changed more in the last few years. However, I don't believe the count will catch up to Murphy's.   Roam41 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated both lists based on what you have posted here. Please see if I interpret your information correctly. — Maile  (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The opening to this RfC states "Both camps are ardent in favor of their hero", yet I find it bemusing, and perhaps a little saddening, how unremarkable and lousy Matt Urban's wiki article is.. a Start class article with 50% of the content being a blockquote of his MoH citation. I think those fans who come here to discredit Murphy in favour of Urban have a nerve, given that they have made no attempt to overhaul the article to any extent; it provides very little biographical background given how much service he must have given to earn those medals. I think we can all see the irony of the situation, and extend extra kudos to Maile for actually putting up with the shit throughout his work on Murphy's article, regardless of who was most awarded. I don't think fighting over who was most decorated does either man any good, they both did their duty and served for the greater cause of WWII, and I'm sure they respected each other and were modest to the end.
 * Figuring out who was most awarded, at best, strengthens the article's notability, but from a worldwide point-of-view is not going to have a great impact.. the debate may result in actual totals to consider, but I don't think it can ever settle the matter any sooner than a Kirk vs. Picard debate.. fans will always be fans, ignorant of the fact that they were both Americans in the U.S. Army. Those IPs that add "most decorated" to either article are biased fans, not patriots, they will turn a blind eye to any totals published, they won't cross reference or verify anything. I think it's safer sticking with the original "one of the most decorated" description in both articles, ignore the Guinness books due to the aforementioned conflicts and let it ride as that. In the same way we don't place evolution above creation, we don't "need" to place Murphy above Urban, or vice versa, Wiki isn't always the right place to make conclusive statements, however clear the research, if we know it can invite controversy.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 13:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting talk page at Matt Urban.— Maile (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, could probably learn more about him from the long discussions there than the article itself. Ridiculous really, that no one of 330 million Americans has taken his article beyond Start class. That's post-9/11 21st century patriotism for you.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 15:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who has even heard of Matt Urban, when you consider the page view history over there. Seems to me you would have to either accidentally run across the article, or already have some knowledge of him to go looking for the article. There's very little that can compare with the kind of publicity blitz Audie Murphy got on his military service. Editor Kumioko used to have a MoH checklist (existing articles and articles that needed to be created) on his home page, and I bet the average individual never heard of most of them. But other than Kumioko, I'm not sure who has that kind of interest.— Maile  (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the editor you speak of appears to have a bad history, blocks, clean starts, retired, bit of a trouble-maker.. not someone I find easy to take seriously, whatever their intentions. Regardless, I imagine, if Urban never received the same level of publicity – let alone a career in movies which gives a post-war claim to notability, rather than settling down to a quiet life – it is understandable that the general public haven't heard of him. Murphy is probably known mostly for his heroic military service in the U.S. his acting second, but mostly for his Western movies in places like Europe, with his military background being acknowledged to a lesser degree, rather than not at all. Perhaps because of the publicity and numerous photo-shoots, biographies and movie career, as well as a tragic untimely death, there is naturally more to say about Murphy, of note. Based on the brief post-war section on Urban's article, he didn't do anything that could amount to fame, didn't write a biog. until he was 69, so no movie was made to celebrate his heroism, unlike Murphy, and still being young enough to play himself people could relate to Murphy visually rather than through an actor portraying him, which gives his name even more credit and sticks in the mind of public culture, especially through younger generations who can see the To Hell and Back reruns or DVD and see how he fought, through his own eyes, it's a very unique film in that respect; it is unfortunate that Urban didn't let himself be known sooner, sometimes a bit of ego or vanity goes a long way to making a modest man better known.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 20:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It’s true you can total the medals in any number of ways. You will always have people arguing as to which medals are more important and how they should be counted. Then it becomes entirely subjective and boils down to the ridiculous argument of who was braver or more deserving. It’s obvious both men were courageous and deserving. The Army won’t comment and will not officially bestow the honor of “most decorated “on any soldier.  This is why I thought it was important to simply go back and see how Matt Urban made his claim.  I do think he was an honorable man.  I feel that he truly believed Audie had less medals. He may have been using an outdated list for comparison.   Audie’s medal count did change in the post war years.  When he requested a set of duplicate medals in 1954, the army discovered several more to which he was entitled retroactively and added them.  One of his French medals presented in the 40’s was not approved to be officially included until the mid 1960s.  After Audie’s death, Mrs. Murphy had the Army review the accounting one more time to make sure it was accurate and again the medal count was adjusted.  That final count was placed in his file in 1979. This is the one published in the Toledo Blade and the exact list we have here on Wikipedia.  Even the Murphy Website doesn’t have it entirely correct.  They are off by one campaign star. I believe the Army was at fault for not checking the official count sooner.  I agree with MarcusBritish.  We can’t solve this issue here. I do think it is good idea to at least maintain a record of what we know on this talk page because undoubtedly the issue will come up again. Roam41 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the whole point. It will come up again, and we have this to refer back to. — Maile  (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current lead of the Matt Urban article states what the Guinness Book of world records says and that seems sufficient. This article says "one of the most famous and decorated" that also seems sufficient. Somehow it seems these men would be uncomfortable with this discussion as their humility about their service would have them not want this kind of attention.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a Brit, I'm failing to see why Purple Hearts or service medals would count towards how decorated a soldier is. In my opinion, only gallantry medals count, not indications of whether you've been wounded (most countries don't even give a medal for this) or where you've served. In addition, in Britain we would usually only count the medals that give letters after the name, which would be down to the Silver Star only in equivalent terms. The Bronze Star only equates to a Mention in Dispatches (effectively a commendation not high enough for the award of an actual medal). That to me clearly means that Murphy is the most decorated, as he had a DSC and Urban did not. If Americans do it just by counting the number of medals and not their level, well, this seems like a very odd system to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the relevance of the argument here. If the article was trying to make the claim that Murphy was most decorated compared to a British soldier with the same claim, then there might be room to consider the counting of Purple Hearts controversial, especially if the Brit has been wounded a number of times yet never awarded anything. But in this case it is an American vs American debate, and so the same selection of medals can be related to both and counted. In fact, Matt Urban beats Murphy's 3 Purple Hearts with his 7 but his other awards do not, so even if you discount all Purple Hearts it makes no difference in the end. I don't think we can impose the way the British or any other nation issues medals to an American subject, we have to respect their system and adhere to it.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 14:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm simply questioning whether it really is their system to just total up all medals, including Purple Hearts and service and campaign medals, and use that total to determine who's the most highly decorated. Where is our evidence for this? Is it original research? Because frankly it sounds bizarre to claim somebody who has the same number of first-level awards and the same number of third-level awards, but no second-level award, can possibly be more highly-decorated than somebody who does have a second-level award just because they've been wounded more times. Frankly, it seems like a no-brainer that Murphy was more highly-decorated. Surely a gallantry medal, which is awarded for something you've done, is more significant than a wound medal, which is simply awarded for something that's happened to you (and which you probably wish hadn't!)? Urban being unluckier doesn't make him more highly-decorated, which, let's face it, implies he's braver, which is what this rather pointless argument essentially boils down to. That makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not original research, nor is evidence needed as the totalling above was simply used on this talk page to help people see how many medals each received in order to determine the wording for the "most awarded" claim in the lead. The article is not stating "Murphy received X number of medals" based on any system, from what I can tell, it's simply considering all his awards – the claim is that he was "most decorated", I assume the term "decorated" applies to all and every medal, award, etc. received relative to military service. As far as I know, there are no other articles on Wikipedia attempting to make "most decorated" claims other than Murphy and Urban, so there is no standard to go by.. it's a fairly unique situation. I don't think, whether you use a system or not, the total will differ so much that it makes any difference. In fact, if we were to adopt a system in order to favour one solider over the other, we might be accused of bias, as everyone has different opinions on what should and should not count.
 * In this document: U.S. Army Regulations 670-1 on page 266, chapter 29, it reads: "The term 'awards' is an all-inclusive term covering any decoration, medal, badge, ribbon,or appurtenance bestowed on an individual or unit." I think it's better to stick with an "everything counts" method and keeping "one of the most decorated" description of Murphy in the prose - it's neutral, and does not impose any editorialised methods of counting the awards which may cause disputes and invite trouble.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never in my long study of military history have I seen the term "most-decorated" applied simply to the number of medal ribbons an individual wore. It usually exclusively applies to the number and level of bravery (and sometimes merit) decorations received, no matter which country is being referred to. If it's just number of medal ribbons then neither Murphy nor Urban come close to the numbers of ribbons worn by senior generals. Eisenhower, for instance, had, by my count, 79 honours, decorations and medals! So no, this doesn't make sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. Rklawton (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then – define "bravery" quantitatively. Define how Murphy is "braver" than Urban, or how Eisenhower is "braver" than both – because the term "brave" is subjective and DOES imply original research, bias or editorialising if used. Medals, awards, whatever you call them do not define simply "bravery" they highlight dedication with regards a particular action. IMO, EVERY damned solider was "brave", whether they be Americans, Germans, Kamikame pilots or members of the Home Guard (naturally SS scum in the death camps are excluded from this as they were not engaged in military action). And personally, I do not consider all generals "brave" as they were often issuing orders from some command HQ – sending their men to die, but never coming under direct fire themselves – but that's only my opinion. The fact that some generals get a half-dozen medals slapped on their chest just for giving orders whilst several hundred or thousand soldiers who actually fought and often died receive none or one or two disgusts me at times, but that's war for you.
 * I also sense a false argument here, you say Eisenhower received 79 medals – yeah okay, but THIS article states Murphy was one of the most decorated only "...of World War II" not ever in U.S. history. How many of Eisenhower's 79 were exclusive to his WWII efforts, once you discount WWI, other conflicts and Presidential awards? Also, "honours" were not mentioned in the aforementioned quote from the U.S. Regs. – streets and pubs named after people is far too unofficial to consider. But I seem to recall that you requested a reliable method of determining what counts. Since I presented one, you've gone back on your argument. Do make your mind up, as this conversation is starting to feel like red-herrings are being produced with which to reduce Murphy's acclaim rather than promote his notability. You may not have come across the term "most decorated" before, but there does seem to be a debate on it, and given that many reliable sources do specifically term Murphy as "most decorated", whether they be wrong or right, it's a matter which cannot be ignored, only considered and comparisons made with other highly decorated soldiers.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 17:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the point of the above either, but it distracts from the stated intent of the RFC. I repeat my opening sentence "Most decorated soldier" or "One of the most decorated soldiers" has been an ongoing edit war with this article since its inception. Before we go to FAC, this needs to be settled on how to handle this.  And it's only about the first sentence in the lead. Who counted them, how they were counted, why they were counted...it doesn't matter.  This is just about history inevitably repeating itself on this article when somebody decides to change that first sentence to "most decorated", and somebody changes it back. The rest of the above is irrelevant to this specific article.— Maile  (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MarcusBritish, who on earth mentioned streets and pubs? Honours means medals, decorations etc, not things named after an individual. To clarify (although I hardly see why it needs clarification), Eisenhower was awarded 79 medals etc which granted him a medal ribbon or device on that ribbon. The vast majority of them were for World War II. So no, neither Murphy not Urban were anywhere close to the "most decorated" soldiers of that war under the "count up all the medal ribbons" system. Whether either was the most decorated combat soldier depends both on how you define "combat soldier" and how you define "most decorated". Neither did I say I hadn't come across the term "most decorated". I've come across it many times, always in the context I specified. Neither am I trying to suggest that either was braver than the other. As I said below, I find that as distasteful as you apparently do. And I really have no interest in "backing" either man. I'm being purely objective here. I'm merely questioning the validity of simply counting up the number of ribbons each man wore - they're just bits of metal and fabric and many of them are awarded simply for being in a particular place at a particular time or being unlucky enough to get shot. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I say and I'm really not sure why or what point you're trying to make. You also seem to be using this as an excuse for a bit of a rambling rant when in actual fact we seem to agree on the point under discussion (see below), which is rather pointless! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, before you go trolling my comments with pretentious "rambling rant" remarks and getting above your station let's apply a bit of common sense here, although I am flattered by your imitation.
 * You said that Eisenhower had 79 honours. So, logically I looked to Dwight D. Eisenhower's article. Everything in the "awards and decorations" section is just that, a medal an award, and some orders despite being named "Legion of Honor"s. Below that we have an "Other awards" section.. and what do we have there? A sabre, an aircraft carrier, streets and avenues, a golf tribute, and an apartment in some Scottish castle. So indeed, when you say "honours" and an "honours" section exists on that man's bio. 1+1=2. Not every country uses medals as honours, but as Honour notes, civilian awards such as OBEs and knighthoods, which are practically impossible to relate to military action as they generally "honour" the individual as a whole for their career/service rather than specific heroic acts.
 * I question your claim that I am "deliberately misinterpreting" you.. very unparliamentary language. You say that "counting all medals" is not a good way of determining how decorated a man is. From what I gather, the only alternative would be a scoring system, e.g. MOH=100, Bronze Star=5, Purple Heart=2 and reckoning who has the highest score in order to determine who is the "top dog". I'm sure soldiers have unrelenting mutual respect for one another and given that such a system is highly unlikely to exist, despite the fact that a MOH is clearly a much greater and valued award than a Bronze Star, then your implication that some medals need to be valued lower than other medals, because they were only awarded based on coincidence, to lead to a determination is purely speculative and highly controversial. It's not the type of thing I would expect to see Wiki doing. I can only suggest that if it does not already exist, that a similar "one of the most decorated" clauses be appended to Eisenhower's article, and that any further suggestions of crediting based on award strength be considered original research and forgotten before things get out of hand. Unless of course such a system can be proven to exist.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only assume from all of this that you have no real understanding whatsoever of honours and awards systems, military or otherwise. Never mind. Since you seem a lot more bothered about this rather pointless issue than I am I'll leave you to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your personal "real" understanding or ego, whatever that obtuse comment represents, does not constitute a reliable source. I can only assume that whilst you expect awards to be considered in a certain fashion, based on strength of merit, you lack any sources which would agree with you. It is fortunate that we have firm policies and common sense guidelines here and do not promote editing based on whimsical ideals. I would have expected a sysop to appreciate that. Given that with or without applying a system, Murphy still remains "one of the most decorated", the entire point you raised was irrelevant anyway unless you wanted to dispute that he was THE most decorated. No one here has argued for that point, however.. least of all me.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can research, Murphy seems to have been named the most decorated combat soldier of WWII because he had at least one of every valor award available to him, plus the individual Croix de Guerre and Legion of Honor from France. At the time (1945), Maurice Britt was considered the second highest.  If Matt Urban’s paperwork had not been lost, he still would not have been considered because he did not have the DSC.  Even if it was determined another way, the important point is Audie was designated, accepted and promoted as the most decorated by the Army for over 50 years.  Murphy did not ask to be recognized in this manner, but this is how he was known.  The cover of Life Magazine declared him as such. The intro to the movie of To Hell and Back (1955) features General Walter Bedell Smith reaffirming it.  Since the film was made with the cooperation of the Army and the DoD, they obviously approved its content. Upon Murphy's death, every news story used the term.  President Nixon issued this statement in 1971. In 2000, when Murphy’s US postage stamp was released, all official press again referred to him as the most decorated.


 * We are just trying to list the facts as we know them regarding Matt Urban’s claim because this issue constantly comes up. There are not a lot of reliable sources, but we do have the 2 official lists of medals as obtained by the Toledo Blade in 2005. We also have the 1995 NY Times obituary. The lists above are numbered in order to match these sources. This accounting method also appears to be the way Matt Urban himself believed he had the most awards. He specifically claimed he had 29 medals. The Total Army Personnel Command told the NY Times in 1995 that both men had 29 medals and were “tied”.  The only way to make Urban’s list add up to 29 is to count everything as we have done here. If you count Murphy’s in the same manner, he has more than 29.  This is not an attempt to make our own count.  It is an attempt to see how it was being looked at by Urban and the Army. As Maile said, we aren’t here to determine who was the most decorated, but to debate whether it should be mentioned in the lead.  I think it should be, perhaps with a disclaimer/footnote stating that the Army no longer wishes to make this distinction between soldiers.  By not mentioning it at all, I think it implies that he was never known as the "most decorated soldier of WWII" and that leaves out some very important information on Murphy's life. Roam41 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you've said. Re the "most decorated", it is mentioned in the footnote at the end of the first sentence under the Honors and awards section. It's not in the lead, but it is explained in the footnote.  We'll see how the consensus goes below. Either direction, we need this consensus for future documentation when conflicts arise. — Maile  (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we change the article lead?
The above statements and statistics also indicate we might reconsider the article's lead sentence. Please leave your "Support" in the appropriate section below. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Leave it as "one of the most"
*Support -
 *  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * -- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there is at least one good quality reliable secondary source using the term 'most decorated' and no sources of a similar standard making this claim for anyone else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he probably was, as I've said above, but the whole argument is essentially a pointless (and somewhat tasteless) "my favourite soldier was braver than your favourite soldier" affair. They were both highly-decorated, they were both courageous, that's enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * support both pages should say "one of the most", this is trying to give objective meaning to something that is subjective. Is the MoH worth the same as a Purple Heart? Of course not, so who assigns these values? If you do it by pure counts of awards (which seems silly to me personally) how do you know there isn't some solider out there that has won every minor award and has a tonne more than either of these two? CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Especially when it is contentious, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine/create a "most decorated" characterization (and thus also deciding on the criteria that would be used to judge that.)   That is wp:or/synthesis.  Second, I think that when in doubt / when it is contentious, it's better for editors to stick to providing information rather than to make / provide characterizations.  And so this is dialed back / much firmer ground that the "most decorated" choice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Change the lead to reflect "most decorated"
*Support -
 * I support this in a way. I don't think you can change it to "most decorated", but I do think some mention of it could be in the lead. You can at least say that Life Magazine proclaimed him as the most decorated. Roam41 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing of "most decorated' title/distinction
User Maille closed this issue before I had the opportunity to address it, and then reopened the subject again for me but I had a computer crash and it was closed again. User Maille has been very kind and has stated that he would like my observations on this issue so I will do my best to place this into perspective.

I will try to voice my concerns and perhaps add a more thoughtful approach to this issue. I regret that I was not able to give my thoughts/opinions earlier before the previous section was archived/closed but I was rather occupied with the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor award which I spearheaded for the past three years.

As was mentioned by User Maille both Murphy and Urban have their supporters. User MarcusBritish made some interesting observations about this "most decorated" business and the fans and to him I say you are right in some ways. That said, I am a Murphy supporter and also have close ties to his family. I am obviously biased because of that relationship, but will try to lay aside my personal bias and deal with this issue objectively. On another note as to MarcusBritish statement that "is not going to have a great impact" I would like to say that the issue was a non-issue until wiki opened this book a while ago. Until that point the Murphy legacy had never been questioned Often newspapers, authors, etc. turn to wiki for information. Recently, when writing of Murphy the "one of" has began to pop up. Should it?...I think not. While it is not the job of wiki to protect the legacy, it is also not the job of wiki to attempt to re-write history without having a factual basis to do so. As recent as June of this year, a reporter used the "all but one medal line" that was on a wiki page (Soldier's Medal) and then went on to report that as factual even though we have come to the agreement that although a half-truth at best, Murphy would have not been capable of earning it as it is primarily a peacetime heroism award. While these types of issues have no bearing on fact, they do have a bearing on legacy.

To that point let it be known I am at a slight disadvantage as I am not a wiki professional editor and I still don't understand how to use wiki in a perfect way, but I will attempt to justify the statement of "most decorated" and address various post by various users all in this same talk section.

Let me begin by saying I am astonished that this issue would be put up to a vote (consensus) as to rather to change or leave as is the issue of most decorated soldier. An encyclopedia source should not make its decision on how to write a subject or the information contained therein based upon a vote but rather upon facts or a preponderance of evidence just as the U.S. court systems and most court systems throughout the world do. The information that we on wiki put out is often used in schools, web blogs, newspapers etc. and it is unfair to the subject matter to attempt to set the record straight on any subject by virtue of a consensus of editors. Our objective, as any good journalists or editor would agree should be to be as factually correct as we can be based upon the information we have at hand.

We have an exact medal count for both Murphy and Urban. I was the person who originally posted here on wiki several years ago the long drawn out conclusion based upon the medal count and the comparisons of Murphy-vs-Urban service records. This is the post that went on to compare MacArthur, Bud Day, Bob Howard, and Admiral Buckley etc. I cannot locate it as it has been archived but I am sure most of the active editors remember the post. Over time that post has been plagiarized and bastardized by others who have copied, pasted, and edited it while posting on various message boards about this subject. The medal count that was disclosed in that post was accurate and I have those documents that were obtained from the Department of the Army in my files. As to the argument that MacArthur had 79 decorations and awards, most from WWII put forth by MarcusBritish let me say that although that is an accurate statement, most (the vast majority) were issued to Ike as honorariums and therefore do not count in the same way a valor decoration would count or have meaning. I think Necrothesp and I agree on that point.

That aside, here are some facts to consider once again. As to the facts or the facts as we know them, I will make this assertion. No matter how the medals are counted Murphy best Urban and no one has ever been able to show differently. The Urban supporters like to cite the Guinness Book of World Records as a source to the claim of "most decorated" however the statement crediting Urban with the title was immediately removed thereafter and Guinness has never resurrected it since As Roam41 stated Murphy as far as I can discover was first reported as "most decorated" by Life magazine and the story was subsequently picked up three days later by Stars and Stripes. It has been repeated in media since that day and continues to this day. Murphy detested the title "most decorated" soldier and is on the record as saying such.

That said, this subject is about legacy and an attempt to re-write what has been determined to be accurate until the wiki explosion some years ago and the desire to rewrite history. At least, that is my interpretation. Here are some points to consider in the overall context of this conversation and subject. The Murphy 201 file (official military record) has long been available to the public, and we at the Audie Murphy Memorial Website have openly disclosed it in its entirety and have never attempted to suppress it. Urban's official military file for whatever reason has never been released and I am not sure if it is accessible even now. Secondly, no matter how you count the medals Murphy best Urban by at least one. I am not a fan of counting marksmanship badges or even the Combat Infantryman Badge as badges are just that…badges and are not awards for valor.

As I stated Muphy never sought out or asked for the titled "most decorated" and it particularly rankled him as he thought the soldiers who should be remembered remained in graves spread across the ETO. Urban by contrast very much desired the title and lobbied extensively for the title "most decorated" initially by lobbying for the Medal of Honor and later through his book The Matt Urban Story America's most decorated" soldier of WWII.

The Purple Heart is not a valor award, it is a merit award, and although every Purple Heart recipient is valorous in their conduct leading up to their wounding and certainly should not be disparaged I don't think there is anything valorous in being wounded in combat. It is as User Necrothesp stated, "Surely a gallantry medal, which is awarded for something you've done, is more significant than a wound medal, which is simply awarded for something that's happened to you (and which you probably wish hadn't!)? Urban being unluckier doesn't make him more highly-decorated. Were it not for Urban's many multiple awards of the Purple Heart we would not even be having this discussion.

Someone also mentioned that the Pentagon has never issued a statement stating that Murphy is the "most decorated" soldier. To that editor I would say that that is a preposterous statement. What would be the point in doing so? I will also state that although the Pentagon has never issued such a statement it is very apparent that the Pentagon with a "wink and a nod" agrees with the statement, and although the Pentagon has never issued a written statement to that effect they have allowed the statement to be entered into the record through various mediums including Pentagon News Broadcast, official websites, and statements from our military leaders.

To solidify that point I will make the following observations. 1) The Pentagon allows the Military District of Washington to honor Murphy each year on his birthday with a wreath laying ceremony. These are presided over by the Senior Enlisted Advisor (Sergeant Major) to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Senior Enlisted Advisor holds a position commensurate to that of a flag officer while remaining an enlisted member. Quoting from wiki "The SEAC is appointed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as a spokesperson to address the issues of enlisted personnel to the highest positions in the Department of Defense. As such the SEAC is the senior enlisted advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of Defense." So, of all the notables buried at Arlington, a special wreath laying ceremony, and to my knowledge the only one of its kind outside of the established holidays of Memorial and Veterans Day is held at Murphy's grave. The service is presided over by the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of Defense. I would think that would be a pretty good indicator of the stature and status of the legacy and name of Audie Murphy and an indication that he is "most decorated". The service isn't performed at the gravesite of Matt Urban.

Secondly, The Pentagon News Channel is an official government news agency and broadcast throughout the Defense Department and its entities each day. Not unlike ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN the broadcast transcripts go through a multi-faceted phase before being approved for broadcast. Murphy as recently as 2013 was mentioned in a Pentagon News Channel Broadcast as being America's "most decorated" combat soldier of WWII. This is an officially sanctioned broadcast of the Department of Defense.

In addition, Armed Forces TV is an officially sanctioned and approved TV network operated by the Department of Defense. Again, its broadcast are carefully screened and approved at the highest levels of the Defense Department. In 2012 Armed Forces TV ran a short quiz clip that asked who was the ‘most decorated" soldier of WWII. The response given in this Department of Defense clip on Armed Forces TV was "Audie Murphy". There was no mention of anyone other than Murphy.

General Walter Bedell Smith, who served as Eisenhower's Chief of Staff and who actually did (as mentioned in the opening scene of "To Hell and Back") review the records of anyone in the ETO nominated for the Medal of Honor unequivocally noted Murphy was America's "most decorated" soldier of WWII. At the time of the filming of the narrative for "To Hell and Back" Smith was actively serving as Under-Secretary of State. Smith had more than 40 years distinguished Army service and also served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. One would think that Smith, as Ike's chief-of-staff would be considered an unimpeachable expert witness as to Murphy's title of "most decorated."

Third, Major General Rick Lynch while in Iraq in an official Army video feed addressed his soldiers in the U.S. recently and referred to Murphy as the "most decorated" soldier. Major General Lynch as a career Army officer with more than 30 years of military service I would think would qualify as an expert witness.

User Maille stated "Publicly, most people take the easy route and refer to Murphy as the most decorated. Even Barack Obama." Most historians, academics, and scholars agree that the head of state of any nation speaks on behalf of and in the interest of the citizenry of that nation. Presidential speeches rather we like the president or not are very carefully crafted and vetted to ensure statements are accurate. President Obama made the statement during a Medal of Honor presentation for Sal Guinta. I think the President would stand by his assertion. As such the head of state is considered not only an expert but an unimpeachable witness with respect to the nation and its history. Former President's Nixon (by letter), Johnson (by letter) and I believe Clinton (in speech), as well as our current President, President Obama (speech), have noted for the record that Murphy was the "most decorated" combat soldier of WWII. In addition Murphy is consistently noted by U.S. President's as laying in rest at Arlington during Memorial Day and Veterans Day speeches. There is no mention of Matt Urban.

It has been reported that President Carter called Matt Urban "America's "most decorated" combat soldier of WWII. That is not factually true. What Carter said was "Matt Urban is perhaps America's greatest combat soldier". There is a big and distinct difference in the purported statement and the actual statement.

As to Army websites, let's take another objective look at this issue. On many (not all) Army websites that are operated and designed by the Department of Defense in conjunction with the Department of the Army, Audie Murphy is cited as America's "most decorated' combat soldier of WWII. The information listed on these Army websites is official in nature and has gone through a vetting process. While Army commands have some latitude in what is on their websites, it must also be understood that frivolous claims cannot be placed on these. Articles placed on these websites are carefully screened not only by locan and command level Public Affairs officials but usually go through the staffs of the Office of the Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Staff off the Army for review prior to placement. If this were not the case, anyone could place anything on these Army websites. Again, the fact that the Army allows Murphy to be listed as "most decorated" and this has obviously not been challenged by competent authority within the Department of the Army must indeed make it a credible sourcing, and as such receive the official/unofficial endorsement of the Department of Defense. Citing the official U.S. Army website privacy and security page "Information available at WWW.ARMY.MIL is consistent with Army and DoD policies and The Principles of Information and contains information cleared for public release." In addition, The Army Home Page is provided as a public service by The Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army in coordination with Army Public Affairs. Since the Army allows the statement to be cleared pertaining to Murphy as "most decorated" while in fact not publically issuing a statement of such must make it true, otherwise they would not allow inaccuracies to be posted.

The Smithsonian refers to Murphy as "most decorated". Quoting from wiki "The Smithsonian Institution is established as a trust instrumentality by act of Congress, and it is functionally and legally a body of the U.S. government, but separate from the government's federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches. More than two-thirds of the Smithsonian's workforce of some 6,300 persons are employees of the federal government. The Smithsonian Office of Protection Services oversees security at the Smithsonian facilities and enforces laws and regulations for National Capital Parks together with the United States Park Police."

Just released the U.S. Department of Education in its newly developed "Common Core Standards" (used in 47 states) has affirmed Murphy in its study plan as "most decorated." That will be included beginning in 2014 for all students in grade 6. Common Core was established by another government agency, the U.S. Department of Education.

User Roam41 mentions Urban's headstone at Arlington and the decorations cited on it. I must point out that the original headstone for Matt Urban at Arlington is not unlike the vast majority of the others that are there. The Urban family bolstered by supporters had a privately purchased headstone added at Arlington. The inscriptions and decorations on it have not been officially vetted and in accordance with policy are not verified through military records by Arlington prior to placement so we have no way of verifying as to rather the awards listed are in fact correct or not. This is proven by the mention of the Belgium Fourragere Medal. There is no such animal, never was, never has been, and Arlington would not have made such an error if the headstone inscriptions had been verified by Arlington officials prior to placement.

Both Murphy and Urban were no doubt highly decorated and gallant. That said, can anyone cite me any official source other than from perhaps a Matt Urban webpage or blog, Urban's own autobiography, or the 1989 Guinness Book of World Records that even purports to make the claim of "most decorated" in his case?

In closing I think that the sources, The Pentagon News Channel, Armed Forces TV, the former presidents of the United States cited, the numerous flag officers who have referred to Murphy as "most decorated" and the various U.S. Army official websites, The Smithsonian, the U.S. Department of Education, and others that state that Murphy is the "most decorated" soldier should be considered as unimpeachable sources to verify the disputed claim and put this issue once and for all to rest within the Wikipedia community.

As to how this can be accomplished there seems to be some concern of the constant edits that this might take. I suggest that the opening 2-3 sentences in the biographical narrative simply be locked from editing and the appropriate links and sources that I have cited be used as verification. Urban could be also cited as having been "a highly decorated officer" etc. and his bio also locked from future edits.

User Martin Hogbin stated he supports leaving as is "Unless there is at least one good quality reliable secondary source using the term 'most decorated' and no sources of a similar standard making this claim for anyone else." I think that I have provided what should be more than sufficient secondary quality reliable sources that verify Murphy as being "most decorated" and would hope that the editors of this page would take a fresh look at this issue using all of the sources that I have cited in an objective fashion. I feel that with objectivity one would have to agree with my conclusions. I can/will provide appropriate links as needed. Thank you!Audiesdad (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just again stating my opening sentence on the RFC: ""Most decorated soldier" or "One of the most decorated soldiers" has been an ongoing edit war with this article since its inception. Before we go to FAC, this needs to be settled on how to handle this" The one and only issue involved is how to handle the inevitable edit wars over the first sentence of the article. There was never any other issue intended in the RFC. Perhaps it will also help to understand that Wikipedia considers the talk page part of the process of dispute resolution. That I know of, Wikipedia does not lock down certain portions of articles. There can be a semi-protection of an article, which mostly locks out IP editors or people such as yourself. Registered users would still be able to edit war over this issue. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Audiesdad


 * In identifying sources, it is not just a matter of what they say, but what they represent. With regards to identifying reliable sources guidelines, some of these sources named, such as The Pentagon News Channel, Armed Forces TV, U.S. majors and generals, and previous presidents – all of these sources are very closely related to representing the U.S., it's name and stated "facts" — I enclose "facts" in quotations because facts do not always represent the truth when they come from desks of military generals and politicians — they can be promotional, propaganda, means of inciting patriotism and maintaining pride, or simply a matter of maintaining public relations with established beliefs. For all we know, these people could simply be quoting TIME magazine and subsequently each other to maintain a "Murphy myth" ever since. Therefore, it is not necessarily reasonable that these sources be considered unquestionably reliable, nor lacking any conflict of interest – frankly, I would have to shake my head at anyone who considers the U.S. government (or any government) completely open, honest or subservient to anyone. These sources are all, to some degree, dubious. Even TV channels sanctioned by the Department of Defense may be subject to following certain guidelines and maintaining U.S. dogma. You can't have a channel that unintentionally (or intentionally) contradicts official statements, right? Even the Smithsonian, to a degree, is dedicated to promoting U.S. history for U.S. citizens and their culture, and may uphold Murphy's legacy rather than look to distance itself.


 * That is why, here on Wiki, we call for third-party sources, ones that distance themselves from being too closely related to the subject of the topic. Friends, family, comrades, are all closely-tied. Researchers and unrelated biographers are more likely to be neutral, and not as susceptible to altering certain events, changing minor details or excluding realities to protect the subject. There are historians who dislike Napoleon, for example, yet portray him as a great man, because they set aside their beliefs and have no family or military attachments to conflict their studies. There are even those who can paint a respectable picture of Hitler, in his early years at least, without letting the slaughter of WWII cloud their views. And so, the same must be asked of sources in relation to Murphy. Third-party sources, lacking professional ties to the military, able to assess his merit without having the weight of representing America on their shoulders. I am a strong believer in neutrality and non-bias, and can set myself apart from any subject. You must do the same, regardless of your relation to his family. Here on Wiki you must represent the truth, not seek to protect the feelings of his family or promote the name the U.S. gave him, if it cannot be supported.


 * The term "one of the most decorated" is not a derogatory statement, it is a flattering remark that doesn't distinguish between first, second and third, like some pony race. We don't want a Murphy–Urban–MacArthur leaderboard scenario here, we shouldn't need it; encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral in their very nature. Wiki is an international encyclopedia, and by not being published in any one country, by having editors from all around the globe, we have a unique role in making sure there are no situations where people are misrepresented, particularly in war. In this case, we can attest to Murphy being considered "the most decorated" by numerous sources almost directly after the war, the term originating in TIME, I gather? But this isn't a clear-cut "first man on the moon" situation that remains indisputable (ignoring conspiracy nuts), but a matter of hype by a magazine during peacetime, which has been disputed, by Urban, by historians, by people who study medals and contest the matter strongly. Murphy is "the most decorated" soldier culturally, but matter-of-factually, which is all an encyclopedia relates to, we need stronger evidence than U.S. military sanctioned sources in order to be objective.


 * So, in response to your comments, I have considered your sources, very impartially; I am not an American, I have no interest in contending Murphy's claim with another soldiers, I have no background interest in U.S. medals, I am not a U.S. patriot, I like, respect and admire Murphy, and I also respect your views and take them seriously, so I feel my objectivity is completely justified when I say, frankly but without meaning offence, I think your sources are not good enough in this case to appeal his position as "most" decorated. They all point to the same central source, all mirror the same view, all represent the U.S. government and Murphy emphatically. It is almost as if they were all purposely selected for the weight behind them, and I find that wrong and unduly biased, because the U.S. government, and those who serve it, has never been known to back down or change its stance when it comes to praising itself and its military. A strong government can never appear questioning once a position is established, and I expect it would serve as an insult to Murphy's memory if they began to show an alternate view after 60 years.


 * The previous !vote is a matter of consensus based on two frames of thought, "one of" or "the" most decorated. To say "one of" is not a false statement, it does not rewrite or revise history. There is no such thing as a "fact", because we learn new things everyday, we discover and learn new things that were once thought "fact" and correct or update our misconceptions. History is by far the most awkward topic that we can ever "get right", due to so many reasons, due to bias, due to having to fill gaps with scant details, due to having to recreate events with what "feels right". On this site, Wikipedia, we have historical articles dating back to BCE history, cited, sources, yet if you closely investigate many of those you will find that they are based on strong beliefs, stories and long-held views passed through the generations, and very rarely on recorded media, no writing, no recording, no photos. We do not say "this is wrong", we say "this is what we know" and look to respected and reliable historians for their research to guide us and amend our views when we learn more. Wiki has to be transparent in these matters, has to remain true to verifiability. I don't think verifying a "the most decorated" claim against a bunch of U.S. government-backed sources would do this article, or its contributors, any credit, and would seem to play more into the hands of U.S. military public relations and Murphy's closest fans than those who respect history as a whole, without equivocation.


 * When we are forced to find a suitable position to take from a selection of statements, and rely on consensus, we do make sure the selection is fitting, that there are no obviously misleading or controversial choices that clearly later the facts. "One of" does not alter any facts, it simply does not play to U.S. public hype C.1945 or promote "government say so", it is neutral and honest, it does not need to be precise. In essence is a stand-off, but an amicable one, between what we know and what we think. There is nothing to stop anyone conducting research in the meantime, finding sources which identify Murphy's position. But they cannot just be a shitload of books that briefly state "Murphy was the most decorated", and that's it on the matter, as to do so would be considered a trivial mention, and could look like fancruft – something we won't welcome in a GA or FA article, as trying to prove a point with lots of minor sources can create a false sense of notability due to synthesis. There are lots of historians out there with published works, and the internet is far from impartial on these matters and often poorly sourced by comparison. I would suggest, that in order to champion the "most decorated" claim with the best interests of the opinion in mind, you need to find them.


 * Finally, regarding: "As to the argument that MacArthur had 79 decorations and awards, most from WWII put forth by MarcusBritish..." – that probably needs double-checking, I made no mention of MacArthur, and I don't see any mention of him in the earlier closed discussion. Necrothesp did make mention of Eisenhower having 79 awards, however, and that he therefore had more than Murphy or Urban, which you may be confusing, and I debated that not all of those 79 may have resulted from WWII alone. But I'm not sure why you believe I mentioned any MacArthur, I know nothing about him.


 * Regards,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 18:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Audiesdad, I understand you haven't figured out all the coding on providing references. But if you have sources that you believe prove your point, you can copy and paste the URLs here on the talk page. To give you an example to make it easy for you, just put an asterisk to the left of each URL, so it will stand out on its own, like this:


 * http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fmu13

If you have something to write below the sourcing, make sure to do a full paragraph return after the last item. That way, it won't blend in with the URL. The asterisks are how you make a bullet-point list on Wikipedia. As sincere as you are about this, I don't know who is going to read a big mass of text like both you and Marcus have put here. But they might take a look at a bullet-point list of sources. At Wikipedia, it all comes down to sourcing. Sign your post like you do with the four tildes, but don't put your signature next to each source. Brevity is a blessing. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I read it, he presented an interesting set of views, even if I disagree with the sources and feel the passion behind it needs to be better directed towards identifying unattached and less trivial accounts. I would advise, to Ausiesdad, not to consider this a "campaign" in the same way as you motioned for the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor to be awarded to Murphy, for example, as that wouldn't carry well on Wiki, given the promotional aspect. We're not dealing with giving Murphy any credit or praise here, as that would represent a point of view, his notability is already well-established with or without "the most decorated" title being absolute. We're dealing with how he needs to be presented as a figure of history, it's not important to give him the status of top dog here, only to exploit the wealth of knowledge we're fortunate to have about him and present it accordingly, without over or under representation. In truth, I feel your energy might be better spent aiding in the development of the main content, verification of sources, introduction of new material, in order to help raise the article to FA standards, than worry about a 4 or 5 words in the lead, which really only serve to summarise the article beneath it, not make characterised statements. I've already given my suggestions to Maile of how I feel this could be done best, using U.S. library materials, as I'm not in a position to do it myself.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 11:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Cite web errors
With Audie Murphy was added to Category:Pages using web citations with no URL.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching this. There were no red error messages in the References section. I need some feedback from you, please. I checked, and all cite webs involved had URLs.  I did find and correct two incidents where the accessdate month was spelled Octobe instead of October. Is it possible those errors added this article to the category? If not, please help clarify. — Maile  (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see the ones.  I'll take care of this.  Let me know later in the day if the article is still on that category. — Maile  (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Texas Legislative Medal of Honor Oct 29, 2013
Texas Governor Rick Perry yesterday presented the Texas Legislative Medal of Honor to Murphy's family in Farmersville. There is a video of the news event. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was presented to Murphy's sister Nadine Lokey (his last living sibling) who, according to the Audie Murphy website, was 11 years old when Audie went off to war. Fox News coverage, AM bio — Maile (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Army of Occupation Medal mis-listed
The article denotes that Murphy got the Germany Occupation Medal but as I recall, Audie's Army of Occupation Medal was later rescinded because some of the days he spent in Germany were on leave, which doesn't count toward the number of days required. --Odd bit of history considering he did so much to defeat Germany. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide your source on what you "recall". The medal in the article is sourced and current.— Maile (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't find the RS on the occupation medal but here's something I did uncover: the Medal of Honor he wears in his movie "To Hell and Back" is not the medal he won; he didn't even know where his medals were when they made the movie so the filmmakers had to get another Medal of Honor for him to wear--this is evident because Audie was awarded the "Gillipsie" style medal but the medal he wears in the movie is the more modern version.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? It's a matter of public record he asked the Army to replace his original medals. Source your original allegation with a credible and verifiable source. WP:Not a chat site  — Maile  (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)