Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 19 March 2013

	Audie Murphy has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 23, 2013 Peer review Reviewed February 27, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians / Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Publishing history of To Hell and Back

Of what value is this list? It looks extraordinarily trivial. Rklawton (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to your opinion. I didn't know if it should be there or not, so I stuck it on. Does it take away from the quality of the article? — Maile (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Audie Murphy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

This article is off to a good start; the prose is strong and the coverage of Murphy's WWII years, obviously the most important part, appears thorough. I've noted some smaller concerns below, but my biggest concern is that the article is constructed mostly from primary sources in its current form: documents from audiemurphy.com and Murphy's autobiography. This raises some concerns about reliability, but more importantly, it means that the article is largely limited to Murphy's World War II experiences, offering little discussion of his later career; for example, his extensive film and television career is covered in only four sentences. I'd suggest that these aspects of his life also be researched and included to meet the "main aspects" criterion for GA.

 Additional information needed Here's the problem I find on the sourcing. It's either Murphy's book, or it's audiemurphy.com There is scant little other information out there about his military career. One of the great ironies is that when I checked a lot of the military base Sergeant Audie Murphy Club sites, many of them had done a copy and paste from the old, unimproved Misplaced Pages article. This issue of sourcing on his military service is a stickler. Conversely, I found it a lot easier to source the filmography. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And if you've gotten as far as the references section on the honors and awards page, then you've read that all the government documents on Murphys service record are scanned at audiemurphy.com - that includes all the testimonies from witnesses that won him the awards. That site has all the information available, as far as military service goes. It just doesn't look good by Misplaced Pages standards. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For GA, the current level of sourcing should be okay. To approach FA, though, I'd definitely suggest balancing with secondary sources like , or . You're more familiar with the sources for Murphy than I, though, so perhaps there's reason to be skeptical of one or all of these. But it seems like there are a few sources out there that could give a secondary-source perspective. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I will work on finding the suggested books. I'd rather not have to purchase them. Hopefully, that sourcing can wait until FA. But it's a piece of information I've needed about what it takes to get this to FA. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I hear you! Like I said, I think you're good for now as long as we can fill in the rest of his life (like the film career, etc.) without them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

More suggestions below; let me know your thoughts, and thanks again for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Clicking through to the filmography article, it appears that you've done a great job there writing up these aspects of Murphy's career that I mentioned above. What I'd suggest would be to include a 4-6 paragraph summary of the filmography in the main article, instead of the current 4-sentence version. That way the main article also has sufficient coverage of this important aspect of Murphy's life. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I can work on the summary of the film career over on the main article. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. That would address my main concern. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've made small copyedits for grammar and style as I went; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and double-check that I haven't accidentally introduced any errors.
• "One of his namesakes assisted with his birth." -- this seems like an awfully minor detail to include in the lead.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Boarded out, he worked" -- can you clarify the "boarded out" here?

 Additional information needed This is Murphy's terminology. He did not elaborate. Any other place it's mention is verbatim from Murphy. I'm open to suggestions on this. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say leave it, then. Perhaps it can be clarified in the future from another source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The section "date of birth and height discrepancies" appears to lack secondary sources--are there any sources that explicitly compare these documents and discuss the discrepancies between them?

I'll work on this. There was much Discussion earlier, and it needs to be addressed. If I find nothing else, what do you suggest? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest leaving it, but finding a way to give it less weight in the article. It gets a lot of article space (a whole subsection) for a controversy that appears to exist only on a Misplaced Pages talk page. Maybe it could be mentioned in just a sentence or two that varying brithdates for Murphy exist, or moved into an explanatory footnote. Does that seem reasonable? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Per your excellent suggestion, I put the entire date of birth controversy into explanatory footnotes. I completely eliminated the height issue - that was more likely clerical error with each medical exam. I have to admit, it looks a lot better with the DoB issue down in footnotes. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks.

• ""Existence has taken on the quality of a dream in which I am detached ..."" -- I'm not sure this quotation is needed here; it seems like a mere restatement of the "complete daze" description, and the transition is awkward grammatically.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Murphy's 1949 autobiography To Hell and Back spent 14 weeks on the bestseller lists when it was originally published." -- a reliable source should be given for this figure (not Amazon)

 Done - I've removed the claim entirely. Another one of those things that everybody copies from everybody with no verification, except Amazon. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Publishing history of To Hell and Back -- listing every edition of this book and its OCLC seems like an unneeded level of detail. It's not a dealbreaker for GA status, but my personal suggestion would be to cut it.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

*The discussion of Murphy's film career is quite brief. How did critics view his performances? Were any of his Westerns particularly notable? Was the television series a success?

• • This isn't a reliable source, but even this quick summary suggests there's much more that could be written here. Ditto this.
• I'm not sure the thwarted carjacking qualifies as a "legal issue"--did Murphy face any legal complications from the incident?

 Additional information needed For the moment, I created a Miscellaneous category for this. I'm open to suggestion. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I retitled it "Attempted carjacking", and also moved the section up so it appeared before some things that happened later chronologically. Is that okay with you? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The incident in which Murphy was charged with attempted murder could use a bit more detail (such as the allegation that Murphy fired a pistol at the man, and the circumstances of the incident).

I'll work on this. Don't know exactly what is out there, but I'll look. — Maile (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done This is taken care of now. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'd strongly suggest cutting the text of Murphy's tombstone; it adds no new information, is unusual in its formatting, and the text is clearly visible in the image anyway. At a minimum I'd suggest moving the lengthy "key to abbreviations" text to a footnote.

 Done - removed — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "An unknown person maintains a small American flag" -- is there a source for this, and are we sure this is up-to-date (i.e., it's still being done?)

 Done - removed - I didn't insert the original text and have no idea where that came from. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "First Lieutenant Murphy was one of very few company-grade officers ever to be awarded the Legion of Merit. That decoration is usually awarded only to officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel and above" -- is there a source for this? This analysis seems like a bit of WP:SYNTH, given that the source doesn't mention Murphy at all. It also seems like it would fit better in the earlier discussion of his awards--unless the legion of merit was added posthumously?

 Done - removed - I didn't insert the original text and have no idea where that came from. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Texas Congressman Ralph Hall commemorated the 25th anniversary" -- do many sources about Murphy mention this event? It seems fairly trivial for a man of Murphy's fame, and relies only on a primary source document. This might be better cut, or moved to the awards and honours subpage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - moved to Audie Murphy honors and awards — Maile (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Remaining

• I think the only significant issue remaining is to flesh out the summary of Murphy's film/TV career. Once that's done, I'll make a second top-to-bottom copyedit to be sure you and I haven't inadvertently added new errors or problems with our changes.

I'm working on this and hope to have it done by today. Just double checking on some references. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've re-worked this. Citation bot was run to catch any reference duplications. Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector shows no copyright issues. An odd piece of history I ran across was that the movie Lee Harvey Oswald was watching when they nabbed him for the JFK assassination, was War is Hell that was narrated by Murphy. If you think it doesn't belong in that section, you can remove it. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks excellent. And I agree that the Oswald bit is interesting enough to include. I'll do that second full copyedit now; I imagine we're close to done with this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• On a much smaller note, now that the reference to the Congressional Record has been moved out of the article body, it should also be removed from the lead. Personally, I would suggest simply eliminating the reference in the lead to his being a poet; it doesn't appear to have been a significant aspect of his life, didn't make him any money or win any awards, and wasn't mentioned in the summary biographies I looked at through Gale databases, etc.

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The phrase in the lead, "his 1949 World War II narrative", implies that the book could be either fiction or memoir; "memoir" might be a bit more specific here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough and checklist

Okay, only a few small issues on this pass.

• "His first wife, Wanda Hendrix, claimed that he once held her at gunpoint" -- claimed should probably be written as "stated" or "said" here per WP:WTA -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Golfstein claimed that Murphy arrived with the client and a boxer who was never named ... He also claimed Murphy stuck a gun in his stomach and tried to abduct him." Another case that should probably be changed to "said" per WP:WTA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "However, Hoffa was freed seven months after Murphy's death and no forensic evidence has arisen to suggest the plane crash was in any way connected to the Hoffa case or not the result of an accident" -- does the source support this second statement? I admit that I only skimmed it, but it seems not to mention the "no evidence has arisen". This perhaps needs to be cut as original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed everything about Hoffa. I'm not the one who originally put that there, and it's always bothered me. One of those conspiracy things that's not definite. Just as well to have it gone. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't seem widely mentioned in sources on Murphy, so no need to have it and confuse the issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Article is well illustrated with appropriate and captioned images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Misplaced Pages Audie Murphy article on Amazon.com

Worth noting here when I ran a Toolserver copyvio on this page today, Amazon's link to the WP Audie Murphy page triggered a false positive on copyvio. Theirs is apparently a direct link to WP, because edits I made today are current on that Amazon AM page.— Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Awards suggestion

Suggest you consider changing "Awards" in the info box (and other such boxes) to "Decorations" because the rest of the awards (not decorations) are not listed in the box. Someone said before that this was too much or big of a change to make.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 3:59 13 March 2013

The infobox is a protected template. The parameters of that can only be edited by Administrators. You need to post this at Template talk:Infobox military person — Maile (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Anachronism

In 1946 there was no such crime as "carjacking", therefore there could not have been a "carjack suspect". The first known use of the term was in 1991:. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Back then it was called a "holdup", but the meaning of words can change over time, and "holdup" relates more to stopping a vehicle to rob the passengers of their property, rather than the vehicle itself, in people's minds. Wiki aims to target a modern audience, and because the crime itself involved the attempted theft of a car, then the use of "carjack" sounds more appropriate than "a holdup", which may have lost its bygone meaning to many readers. I can't find anything in the MOS that relates to this kind of old to new translation directly, but I think MOS:COMMONALITY would apply best here, in that "carjack" has but one meaning, "holdup" several. Ma®©usBritish 06:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but it just reads (to me) as being odd and amateurish. Especially the "suspect" part, since there was no such crime. I couldn't find the cited source on the internet, so I can't make any informed suggestions.  ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, couldn't find it myself. There's a lot of the language in the article that is not of a high standard.. we're aiming to improve it to FA, but it takes time and patience, as new content is being added daily that often requires copy-editing. Ma®©usBritish 07:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Have changed it around a bit, should read better now. Thanks for the concerns. Ma®©usBritish 07:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought about changing section header: 'Attempted carjacking' → 'Foiled crime' -to better represent content. Otherwise it might be misleading. — But I figured I'd post it here for consensus.   ~Good luck on the FA!  ☆   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When we were doing the GA review, I had it here and there, trying to place it. It was the GA reviewer Khazar2 who moved it to that particular heading. Since it was the GA reviewer who did that, I'm leaning towards their knowing what they were doing. So, until this article gets put up for an A review on its hopeful rise to FA, maybe it won't hurt to let the GA reviewer's heading stand. — Maile (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with another user changing that heading, FWIW. I think I was moving it out of the "Legal troubles" section at the time, and to be honest didn't put a lot of thought into the new header. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Source found (modified citation, thus):

• "130-pound Hero Fells 190-pound Holdup Suspect" (PDF). Dallas Morning News and Associated Press. Volume 2, Spring 1997: Audie L. Murphy Memorial newsletter. December 11, 1946. p. 18. Retrieved March 15, 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

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

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

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

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

Multiple references

Why the use of multiple citations (up to five at a time) in the section European Theatre? This is excessive and affects readability. Unless anyone objects, I suggest they be pruned. Hohenloh 14:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:MILMOS#CITE: "The nature of historical material requires that articles be thoroughly—even exhaustively—cited." Depending on the claims being referenced, the degree of support can vary.. i.e. controversial or challengeable material often requires more sourcing to substantiate the content. Five citations isn't really a great deal, and given that the article is being aimed at FA, thorough referencing is going to be important. Pruning should be handled with extreme care, as it may be seen as biased or selective referencing. Ma®©usBritish 15:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that information to my attention - I agree with it completely. However, there is also such a thing as Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill. Ref 69 appears six times in the first paragraph, 101 four times in one section, 103 six times in one section. My point is that this situation could be improved, and more care taken in future - one of the main editors of the article has already complained of the plethora of citations. I don't wish to edit the refs myself, as I'm not familiar with the article and its history.

Another thing I noticed in the references is the use of links in refs such as "Murphy 2002" and "Graham 1989" to link back to the article page. I've never seen this done before and don't think it's correct. What do you think? Hohenloh 15:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The apparent self-linking is part of the {{sfn}} referencing - it takes you down to the titles of the references uses so that you can see the full details about the book by Murphy, 2002, etc. I don't use that particular referencing system myself, given that the Notes section is right before the References section it simply adds a load of unnecessary HTML links, and increases page load, but some editors do use it, for whatever reason.

MILMOS vs Overkill – to be fair, many Wiki guidelines have opposing or contradictory guidelines. Someone writes one set of guidelines, people who oppose them write another set with a different but reasonable logic in mind. In the end you pick your team and play for it. When it comes to citing, you can either cite directly at the end of a sentence containing a claim, or the end of the paragraph. Pros and cons for both. For the sentence method you risk overkill claims, for the paragraph method you risk bundling the refs into one and it becomes uncertain which refs apply to which claims in the paragraph. This makes the sentence citing safer, in most respects. In some cases the citing can be spread a bit thinner to ease up on repetition. I have personally reviewed articles where there have been paragraphs dozens of lines long, then the refs placed at the end. By not using any inline citations it's impossible to relate something like "pp. 1, 3, 5–8, 32, 102, 122–130" to a huge body of text, and we generally do ask editors to break such refs down to the sentences they apply to. Ma®©usBritish 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hohenloh, the sfn citation style you're referring to is Harvard reference, and I'm the one who has been using it. It's actually handy in many ways. However, on the end goal of improving this article, I'm not sure if I'll leave it that way or not. MarcusBritish has made a valid point elsewhere that every link adds bytes to an article. This article is getting somewhat hefty. I just haven't had a chance to deal with this issue here due to other things going on. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Holtzwihr, France section

I have replaced the text entirely with the version that existed prior to March 9. Much of what was done since March 9 was lifted in its entirety from Newsletter 8 of www.audiemurphy.com. Too tedious to go sentence by sentence. It wasn't just what Duplication Detector caught. As I made a side by side comparison, it was plagiarism of Spec McClure's prose in Newsletter 8. Will check the other sections..— Maile (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A history on what has been happening to this. The copyvio was originally posted on March 9 by YahwehSaves. I reverted it out. YahwehSaves reverted me. After I reverted it today, YahwehSaves did a second revert. I posted a request for help at WikiProject Military history. Uninvolved editor Binksternet agreed that this was copyvio. He had reverted the copyvio and left a message on the talk page for YahwehSaves. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a sham, the AMF newsletter wasn't and isn't on the "See Also" list. The article editing improvements and corrections like Editor Binksternet said was done in good faith, I corrected the ranks of Lottie Tipton and Joe Sieja to pfc and they should not be made privates again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)

"Sham"? Makes no sense. First off, you may have the {{YesAutosign}} template on your userpage, but it doesn't always work, nor is it guaranteed to – please have the common courtesy to use the standard 4~ method in future to save the rest of us pissing about signing your posts, we ain't your skivies and such ignorance isn't welcome in a collaborative environment. To your point: No one is going to stop you correcting ranks and other such details, as long as they are reliably sourced. The complain here relates only to you virtually copy and pasting huge blocks of text from newsletters, which is a copyvio and is the responsibility of every member of Wiki to uphold, so why you keep reverting and acting as though you deserve special treatment makes no sense whatsoever. Get the message? Ma®©usBritish 07:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Maile66 referenced sucessfully from the AMF newsletter on Feb. 23, "Legal issues" section. I referenced from newsletter sometime after February and not at the Legal issues section. Harsh remarks about me and to me is not in good faith.YahwehSaves (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not paying attention to what we're saying, and criticism of another editor is not bad faith, it's a necessity. There's a big difference between referencing a newsletter and copying from it almost word for word. One is legal, the other is not and must be removed to prevent copyright claims. Ma®©usBritish 03:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Apparent quotes not being quoted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not in source

Challenging referencing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British above, 2nd line:

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Warfare good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• GA-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• GA-Class biography (military) articles
• Mid-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• GA-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• GA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• GA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles