This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael P. Murphy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Michael P. 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 20, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in an upcoming presentation ceremony at the
White House, the late
Navy SEAL
Michael P. Murphy (pictured) will become the first person awarded the
Medal of Honor for actions in the current
War in Afghanistan? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article semes to show wikipedia as a memorial site... maybe someone should make it a bit more NPOV? JaMiE P 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The possibilities are: cell phone, radio, and satellite phone. Based on what I've read, he was using a satellite phone. If someone would provide a reliable source indicating which, it would be useful. The matter isn't trivial since it was the nature of the technology that forced Murphy to move into the open in order to make his call for help. Rklawton ( talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox suggests he was also awarded the Silver Star, but the text of the article has no mention of it. Anyone know the circumstances that got him the Silver Star? Ydorb ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I believe the original award was a Silver Star but was later upgraded to the Medal of Honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the father of this person (assuming good faith) has posted at WP:EAR regarding this matter. Please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#re: my son, Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy, User talk:24.185.231.182, User talk:Dual Freq#Image of parents of Michael P. Murphy and this U.S.A. gov release before reverting caption to the incorrect USN version. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The text (section Biography, paragraph 5) names 80 to 200 enemies that attacked the 4-person group. The Medal of Honor citation names 30 to 40 enemies. I would assume that the US navy gets their facts right, especially for something as important as a Medal of Honor citation, but I find it hard to believe that the author of the book that is cited for the 80-200 number didn't do good research. Does anyone know a definitive answer to this? Fransw ( talk) 08:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Read Victory Point by Ed Darack. His book is based on exhaustive research, including official intel reports. Actual number of enemy combatants was closer to 8-12. There is even video that has been obtained showing the actual battle in progress from the Taliban side. There were not 200, 100, or even 30-50 enemy combatants involved in this battle. Since the battle of Tora Bora there has never been a large group of Taliban like this congregated in one place. Hollywood fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.149.142 ( talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In "The Lone Survivor" written by Marcus Luttrell, the only survivor of this fight, writes that it was more along the 100-150 side of Taliban enemies. That they kept calling in reinforcements as Luttrell, Dietz, Murphy, and Axelson would shoot them down. This may be something that is never 100% answered down to the person but I trust the man that was there not a man who wrote a book based on some video and evidence that we don't even know really exists. You should really read The Lone Survivor, it accounts in detail everything that happened out there that day and it's evident to me that there was plenty more opposition then just 8-12, and that's coming straight from Luttrell's mouth, who don't forget, was there! BlessUSTroops ( talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Nikki
There are to many inconsistencies in Luttrell`s story for it to be anything but false. Read the book and you can clearly tell it was not written by anyone with Military experience. It was written completely by a fiction writer. The number of enemy that day has been proven to have been no more than 20 men. Luttrell lied to profit off of the deaths of his friends, and it`s users like this guy above who feed the rumor mill and make this man out to be a hero. He was a hero, before hi lied and profitted on the death of US soldiers. I like to see the comment above, read Victory point by ed darack, it explains the truth, The NAVY SEALS are awesome, but they screwed that mission royally. the marines had it under control and the seals got a bunch of people killed. Luttrell was there, and he is also quoted as saying ``A texan never let`s the truth get in the way of a good story`` He is a lier PERIOD SteveJanes704 ( talk) 04:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
9Sorry-put the point in the wrong discussion point- don't involve myself in this but Janes seems to be making this personal).It appears that Steven Janes, who was not in Afghanistan, has decided to not only question Marcus' account of the battle and even worse, call Marcus Luttrell a liar but totally discounts my son's Medal of Honor citation and the Navy to continue to assert the myth advanced by Ed Darack in his book Victory Point. I suggest everyone read Sebastian Junger's account in his well researched book "War" (and someone without an agenda) which I would think is a more reliable author than Darack who appears to have an agenda to support Marines while dishonoring Special Operations troops. I thought there was plenty of room for all heroes in Afghanistan but I guess to this old combat wounded Vietnam Vet and the father of Navy SEAL LT Michael Murphy, Janes believes if you're not a Marine you're a nobody. I think someone should re-correct this article as it adopts a contested point of view advanced by someone with a distorted agenda and a hatred of Luttrell. I always thought Wikileaks was a definitive treatise based on facts not someone's agenda or name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 ( talk) 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If the previous poster is in fact who he says he is, I am sorry for his loss( sorry, I cant take you on faith, I've seen to many people claiming to be someone else on the net). For some reason, some people have it in for Marcus Luttrell. If I recall right, he gives a large slice of the money he makes from his books to charity, and Lone Survivor, was largely written by Patrick Robinson, from his interviews with Luttrell. I vaguely recall Marcus himself stating that a number of things in it where false.-AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.138.52 ( talk) 03:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The whole Medal of Honor citation section should be removed from the article, as it's primary source text, reproduced in its whole, without analysis. Maybe moved to wikibooks , a project dedicated to sources ?
The informations present in this primary source can be presented in the article, with a neutral ton. What i try to explain is that - copy/paste a whole text, and that's it - method, is not a good way of presenting informations according to Wikipedia guidelines.-- Lilyu ( talk) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Steven Janes, who was not in Afghanistan, has decided to not only question Marcus' account of the battle and even worse, call Marcus Luttrell a liar but totally discounts my son's Medal of Honor citation and the Navy to continue to assert the myth advanced by Ed Darack in his book Victory Point. I suggest everyone read Sebastian Junger's account in his well researched book "War" (and someone without an agenda) which I would think is a more reliable author than Darack who appears to have an agenda to support Marines while dishonoring Special Operations troops. I thought there was plenty of room for all heroes in Afghanistan but I guess to this old combat wounded Vietnam Vet and the father of Navy SEAL LT Michael Murphy, Janes believes if you're not a Marine you're a nobody. I think someone should re-correct this article as it adopts a contested point of view advanced by someone with a distorted agenda and a hatred of Luttrell. I always thought Wikileaks was a definitive treatise based on facts not someone's agenda or name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sidebar shows Captain's bars, but identifies him (and insignia of rank) as "Lieutenant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.118.94 ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Navy, a Navy Lieutenant is an O-3 or Captain in the other services so on their uniform they wear two side bars representing the rank of Captain in the other services. FYI, in the Navy the ranks run Ensign (2nd Lt. in the other services) Lieutenant, junior grade LTjg (1st Lt. in the other services) and then full Lieutenant denoted by caps LT not Lt. (captain in the other services.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.96.142 ( talk) 20:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I am moving the below entry here and seeing what the opinion is. To me, it smacks of a commercial nature, and is merely a link to this company site for fitness workouts. The "honor" is somewhat dubious, and is not in the same league as the lieutenant's other honors. Is having a fitness workout named after you a reputable honor? Here is what was on the site, along with the reference. (Both were posted anonymously too).
What do you think? - K72ndst ( talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that I highly doubt crossfit is using this as a marketing too. There are many workouts named after heros in our country. The US Navy seals brought the crossfit style work out into the military. The "murph" work out is actually the hardest and longest workout to complete even for a seasoned athlete. It was done this way on purpose and I think at the very least it should be put on the page as a general workout leaving out the crossfit name. Every time this workout is used at the gyms I have gone to I make sure to tell his story.
As Michael's father, I notice that one of my son's awards is not represented and for the purposes of accuracy of Michael's biography I thought I would mention that Michael was also awarded the GWOT Global War on terrorism service medal. Since I'm not schooled in editing these pages, I just thought I'd bring it to your attention and have one of you who are, make the correction in his bio and also on the chest ribbon plate.
207.29.190.95 (
talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
A Navy Destroyer,named The Michael Murphy, is almost finished being built in San Diego, CA. May 1, 2011 LindaSchneider ( talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Linda Schneider
The Navy Destroyer USS Michael Murphy DDG-112 Ageis Class was christened May 7th 2011 at General Dynamics Bath, Maine facility by the sponser, his mother. It was floated and will sit dockside until sea trials and completion later this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.236.234 ( talk) 19:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
References
I notice that this article has been nominated for a Good Article Review. I have done a quick review while you wait and have the following points:
Anyway that is all I have. I hope these comments help and that the article is ultimately successful in its quest of obtaining GA status. Good work to those who have contributed so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to thank all of you for working on Michael's biography to get it right. The family really likes the way Michael's awards are set out with the ribbons and an explanation of each one. There were some questions about the GWOT service medal and/or the expeditionary medal. My understanding is that the Afghanistan campaign medal replaced the expeditionary medal though Michael did in fact do 2 tours to the Middle East and one to Africa... The reason I brought up the GWOT service medal is that when the Navy presented us with Michael's uniform after the tragedy and before the award of The Medal of Honor....his complete awards less the MOH were on it... I used that as a guide in my prior communication on this board... I've provided a link to Michael's legacy website.....go to the pictures and midway through is a picture of his Navy whites with his medals and awards..... http://www.legacy.com/gb2/default.aspx?bookid=790288462563 24.185.231.182 ( talk) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I, too, have a few comments on the article. See also sections should only be used as a last resort and should only contain links that are highly relevant to the subject, but are also not previously linked to in the prose. As the SEALs article is already linked to, it should be removed, same with the other Medal of Honor recipients; they do not really add anything to the article and are not highly relevant to the context of Murphy. Also, there are way too many subheadings in the area of Murphy's honours. The "Other honours", "Michael P. Murphy Memorial Park", "Michael P. Murphy United States Post Office", "U.S.S. Michael Murphy DDG-112" and "Biography" sections should be combined into a single "Legacy" section. Additionally, Note 1 is solely WP:OR and should be referenced or removed; same with all of the "Military awards". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Michael's father again. Unsure of why Michael's GWOT Service Medal was removed from the site. The picture referenced in MIchael's legacy web site of his uniform presented to us by the Navy at the Lake Ronkonkoma dedication shows the GWOT service medal having been awarded...also Michael's official Navy records which I now have in my possession show the award along with the Silver Star for his combat service in Afghanistan in 2005 as opposed to an upgrade. The MOH was separate and referenced the battle itself. Do you need a copy of the citations because I have them? They will all appear in Michael's biography by Gary Williams. It is tentatively titled "When Character met Circumstance; The Life of Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy" which comes from a speech by Admiral Maguire, then head of Naval Special Warfare, at the Navy Memorial wherein he referenced Michael's character coming to the forefront when confronted with the circumstances he faced on that tragic June day. I might note that not all of Michael's awards show up on his official Navy bio. 207.29.190.95 ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
The ribbons display is incorrect. In the Navy, we only display horizontal rows of 3 each (US Navy Uniform Regs para 5312). Also, I couldn't find it in the regulations but I believe that the MOH ribbon is always centered by itself in its own row above everything else. The GWOT SM should be there as well as the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The previously questioned GWOT Expeditionery Medal probably should also be there if LT Murphy made two deployments to the Middle East. One deployment would earn the GWOT EM, the other the Afgh Campaign Medal, which is already present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.6.11 ( talk) 09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I restored the photo gallery, which was deleted without any discussion. If you note the photos, they show details not available in other images here. If you want to discuss this, do it here. Thanks and have a blessed day. -- K72ndst ( talk) 04:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The first footnote states that LT Murphy is deserving of the GWOT service medal. This is incorrect. He is entitled to the expeditionary medal, having served in the war on terror overseas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.61.40 ( talk) 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is Lt. Murphy's father. I have Michael's official Navy records showing not only the award of the GWOT service medal but also the GWOT expeditionary medal and the award of the Sea Service medal. Michael has 13 decorations in all.... I don't know how you document the award by reference other than to his official Navy record but the awards will show up in Michael's biography, now titled "SEAL of Honor: Operation Redwings and the Life of Lt. Michael P. Murphy, USN." by author Gary Williams to come out sometime next May-June 2010. At that time you will have a reference besides the official record which I have. 207.29.190.95 ( talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
By current regs, he would absolutely get the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal for active duty service after 9/11. This is absent from the article's "ribbon rack" and needs to be fixed. As for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, if he received the Afghanistan Campaign Medal then he would not receive the GWOTEM for the same action - only if he deployed twice to a separate location. So, that part appears to be correct. - OberRanks ( talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (LCDR, USN)
Question....When does a Navy SEAL officer decide to vote on whether or not to silence sheephearders who stumble upon their position in enemy territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.57.68 ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the team voted is verified by the sole survivor in an article referenced in the text so there's little doubt that they did vote on what to do about the civilians. Special operations units don't operate like the rest of the military. The entire team is involved in the planning and preparation of the mission and moral questions like the killing of civilians who incidentally jeopardize the mission are often resolved by consensus rather than arbitrary directives from the commanding officer if they aren't covered by the mission order. --
SEWalk (
talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
First, there was discussion about LT Murphy being the recipient of the
GWOTEM &
GWOTSM, but they're not listed. I found a reference to assist with the placement of said awards onto the rack displayed in the section.
General Dynamics
Bath Iron Works displays the
USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) christening program at their website,
http://www.gdbiw.com/sites/default/files/docs/Murphy112_Web.pdf
Second, rather than referencing each award (with the same reference, especially), it would be aesthetically pleasing to relocate the reference to the bottom of the section. Your thoughts?
Bullmoosebell (
talk) 07:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That's phenomenal,
Kumioko, thanks. What about the Awards table? Any thoughts of removing the
[1] from each individual award and emplacing the reference at the bottom of the page (so as to provide a pleasing look to the table without the bracketed numbers)?
FROM:
TO:
Bullmoosebell ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Some general things that need to be fixed prior to submitting for FA
If you see anything else please let me know. Kumioko ( talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Read much on this and Mikey ordered his team to rotate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.194 ( talk) 23:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
149.142.24.213 ( talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michael P. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael P. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
can someone add the Museum named after him https://murphsealmuseum.org/ . 204.128.182.36 ( talk) 15:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree that this section is way too large. All of the subsections are unnecessary. However, the wholesale removal of it was a bit too extreme. I think it can be summarized and condensed down to a much, much shorter version, as long as it's properly sourced. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 23:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Michael P. Murphy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Michael P. 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 20, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that in an upcoming presentation ceremony at the
White House, the late
Navy SEAL
Michael P. Murphy (pictured) will become the first person awarded the
Medal of Honor for actions in the current
War in Afghanistan? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article semes to show wikipedia as a memorial site... maybe someone should make it a bit more NPOV? JaMiE P 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The possibilities are: cell phone, radio, and satellite phone. Based on what I've read, he was using a satellite phone. If someone would provide a reliable source indicating which, it would be useful. The matter isn't trivial since it was the nature of the technology that forced Murphy to move into the open in order to make his call for help. Rklawton ( talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The infobox suggests he was also awarded the Silver Star, but the text of the article has no mention of it. Anyone know the circumstances that got him the Silver Star? Ydorb ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I believe the original award was a Silver Star but was later upgraded to the Medal of Honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 ( talk) 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the father of this person (assuming good faith) has posted at WP:EAR regarding this matter. Please see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#re: my son, Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy, User talk:24.185.231.182, User talk:Dual Freq#Image of parents of Michael P. Murphy and this U.S.A. gov release before reverting caption to the incorrect USN version. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The text (section Biography, paragraph 5) names 80 to 200 enemies that attacked the 4-person group. The Medal of Honor citation names 30 to 40 enemies. I would assume that the US navy gets their facts right, especially for something as important as a Medal of Honor citation, but I find it hard to believe that the author of the book that is cited for the 80-200 number didn't do good research. Does anyone know a definitive answer to this? Fransw ( talk) 08:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Read Victory Point by Ed Darack. His book is based on exhaustive research, including official intel reports. Actual number of enemy combatants was closer to 8-12. There is even video that has been obtained showing the actual battle in progress from the Taliban side. There were not 200, 100, or even 30-50 enemy combatants involved in this battle. Since the battle of Tora Bora there has never been a large group of Taliban like this congregated in one place. Hollywood fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.149.142 ( talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In "The Lone Survivor" written by Marcus Luttrell, the only survivor of this fight, writes that it was more along the 100-150 side of Taliban enemies. That they kept calling in reinforcements as Luttrell, Dietz, Murphy, and Axelson would shoot them down. This may be something that is never 100% answered down to the person but I trust the man that was there not a man who wrote a book based on some video and evidence that we don't even know really exists. You should really read The Lone Survivor, it accounts in detail everything that happened out there that day and it's evident to me that there was plenty more opposition then just 8-12, and that's coming straight from Luttrell's mouth, who don't forget, was there! BlessUSTroops ( talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Nikki
There are to many inconsistencies in Luttrell`s story for it to be anything but false. Read the book and you can clearly tell it was not written by anyone with Military experience. It was written completely by a fiction writer. The number of enemy that day has been proven to have been no more than 20 men. Luttrell lied to profit off of the deaths of his friends, and it`s users like this guy above who feed the rumor mill and make this man out to be a hero. He was a hero, before hi lied and profitted on the death of US soldiers. I like to see the comment above, read Victory point by ed darack, it explains the truth, The NAVY SEALS are awesome, but they screwed that mission royally. the marines had it under control and the seals got a bunch of people killed. Luttrell was there, and he is also quoted as saying ``A texan never let`s the truth get in the way of a good story`` He is a lier PERIOD SteveJanes704 ( talk) 04:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
9Sorry-put the point in the wrong discussion point- don't involve myself in this but Janes seems to be making this personal).It appears that Steven Janes, who was not in Afghanistan, has decided to not only question Marcus' account of the battle and even worse, call Marcus Luttrell a liar but totally discounts my son's Medal of Honor citation and the Navy to continue to assert the myth advanced by Ed Darack in his book Victory Point. I suggest everyone read Sebastian Junger's account in his well researched book "War" (and someone without an agenda) which I would think is a more reliable author than Darack who appears to have an agenda to support Marines while dishonoring Special Operations troops. I thought there was plenty of room for all heroes in Afghanistan but I guess to this old combat wounded Vietnam Vet and the father of Navy SEAL LT Michael Murphy, Janes believes if you're not a Marine you're a nobody. I think someone should re-correct this article as it adopts a contested point of view advanced by someone with a distorted agenda and a hatred of Luttrell. I always thought Wikileaks was a definitive treatise based on facts not someone's agenda or name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 ( talk) 16:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If the previous poster is in fact who he says he is, I am sorry for his loss( sorry, I cant take you on faith, I've seen to many people claiming to be someone else on the net). For some reason, some people have it in for Marcus Luttrell. If I recall right, he gives a large slice of the money he makes from his books to charity, and Lone Survivor, was largely written by Patrick Robinson, from his interviews with Luttrell. I vaguely recall Marcus himself stating that a number of things in it where false.-AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.138.52 ( talk) 03:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The whole Medal of Honor citation section should be removed from the article, as it's primary source text, reproduced in its whole, without analysis. Maybe moved to wikibooks , a project dedicated to sources ?
The informations present in this primary source can be presented in the article, with a neutral ton. What i try to explain is that - copy/paste a whole text, and that's it - method, is not a good way of presenting informations according to Wikipedia guidelines.-- Lilyu ( talk) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Steven Janes, who was not in Afghanistan, has decided to not only question Marcus' account of the battle and even worse, call Marcus Luttrell a liar but totally discounts my son's Medal of Honor citation and the Navy to continue to assert the myth advanced by Ed Darack in his book Victory Point. I suggest everyone read Sebastian Junger's account in his well researched book "War" (and someone without an agenda) which I would think is a more reliable author than Darack who appears to have an agenda to support Marines while dishonoring Special Operations troops. I thought there was plenty of room for all heroes in Afghanistan but I guess to this old combat wounded Vietnam Vet and the father of Navy SEAL LT Michael Murphy, Janes believes if you're not a Marine you're a nobody. I think someone should re-correct this article as it adopts a contested point of view advanced by someone with a distorted agenda and a hatred of Luttrell. I always thought Wikileaks was a definitive treatise based on facts not someone's agenda or name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Sidebar shows Captain's bars, but identifies him (and insignia of rank) as "Lieutenant" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.118.94 ( talk) 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Navy, a Navy Lieutenant is an O-3 or Captain in the other services so on their uniform they wear two side bars representing the rank of Captain in the other services. FYI, in the Navy the ranks run Ensign (2nd Lt. in the other services) Lieutenant, junior grade LTjg (1st Lt. in the other services) and then full Lieutenant denoted by caps LT not Lt. (captain in the other services.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.96.142 ( talk) 20:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I am moving the below entry here and seeing what the opinion is. To me, it smacks of a commercial nature, and is merely a link to this company site for fitness workouts. The "honor" is somewhat dubious, and is not in the same league as the lieutenant's other honors. Is having a fitness workout named after you a reputable honor? Here is what was on the site, along with the reference. (Both were posted anonymously too).
What do you think? - K72ndst ( talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that I highly doubt crossfit is using this as a marketing too. There are many workouts named after heros in our country. The US Navy seals brought the crossfit style work out into the military. The "murph" work out is actually the hardest and longest workout to complete even for a seasoned athlete. It was done this way on purpose and I think at the very least it should be put on the page as a general workout leaving out the crossfit name. Every time this workout is used at the gyms I have gone to I make sure to tell his story.
As Michael's father, I notice that one of my son's awards is not represented and for the purposes of accuracy of Michael's biography I thought I would mention that Michael was also awarded the GWOT Global War on terrorism service medal. Since I'm not schooled in editing these pages, I just thought I'd bring it to your attention and have one of you who are, make the correction in his bio and also on the chest ribbon plate.
207.29.190.95 (
talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
A Navy Destroyer,named The Michael Murphy, is almost finished being built in San Diego, CA. May 1, 2011 LindaSchneider ( talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Linda Schneider
The Navy Destroyer USS Michael Murphy DDG-112 Ageis Class was christened May 7th 2011 at General Dynamics Bath, Maine facility by the sponser, his mother. It was floated and will sit dockside until sea trials and completion later this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.236.234 ( talk) 19:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
References
I notice that this article has been nominated for a Good Article Review. I have done a quick review while you wait and have the following points:
Anyway that is all I have. I hope these comments help and that the article is ultimately successful in its quest of obtaining GA status. Good work to those who have contributed so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to thank all of you for working on Michael's biography to get it right. The family really likes the way Michael's awards are set out with the ribbons and an explanation of each one. There were some questions about the GWOT service medal and/or the expeditionary medal. My understanding is that the Afghanistan campaign medal replaced the expeditionary medal though Michael did in fact do 2 tours to the Middle East and one to Africa... The reason I brought up the GWOT service medal is that when the Navy presented us with Michael's uniform after the tragedy and before the award of The Medal of Honor....his complete awards less the MOH were on it... I used that as a guide in my prior communication on this board... I've provided a link to Michael's legacy website.....go to the pictures and midway through is a picture of his Navy whites with his medals and awards..... http://www.legacy.com/gb2/default.aspx?bookid=790288462563 24.185.231.182 ( talk) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
I hope youse don't mind me butting in, but I, too, have a few comments on the article. See also sections should only be used as a last resort and should only contain links that are highly relevant to the subject, but are also not previously linked to in the prose. As the SEALs article is already linked to, it should be removed, same with the other Medal of Honor recipients; they do not really add anything to the article and are not highly relevant to the context of Murphy. Also, there are way too many subheadings in the area of Murphy's honours. The "Other honours", "Michael P. Murphy Memorial Park", "Michael P. Murphy United States Post Office", "U.S.S. Michael Murphy DDG-112" and "Biography" sections should be combined into a single "Legacy" section. Additionally, Note 1 is solely WP:OR and should be referenced or removed; same with all of the "Military awards". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 06:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Michael's father again. Unsure of why Michael's GWOT Service Medal was removed from the site. The picture referenced in MIchael's legacy web site of his uniform presented to us by the Navy at the Lake Ronkonkoma dedication shows the GWOT service medal having been awarded...also Michael's official Navy records which I now have in my possession show the award along with the Silver Star for his combat service in Afghanistan in 2005 as opposed to an upgrade. The MOH was separate and referenced the battle itself. Do you need a copy of the citations because I have them? They will all appear in Michael's biography by Gary Williams. It is tentatively titled "When Character met Circumstance; The Life of Navy SEAL Lt. Michael P. Murphy" which comes from a speech by Admiral Maguire, then head of Naval Special Warfare, at the Navy Memorial wherein he referenced Michael's character coming to the forefront when confronted with the circumstances he faced on that tragic June day. I might note that not all of Michael's awards show up on his official Navy bio. 207.29.190.95 ( talk) 18:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy
The ribbons display is incorrect. In the Navy, we only display horizontal rows of 3 each (US Navy Uniform Regs para 5312). Also, I couldn't find it in the regulations but I believe that the MOH ribbon is always centered by itself in its own row above everything else. The GWOT SM should be there as well as the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. The previously questioned GWOT Expeditionery Medal probably should also be there if LT Murphy made two deployments to the Middle East. One deployment would earn the GWOT EM, the other the Afgh Campaign Medal, which is already present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.6.11 ( talk) 09:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I restored the photo gallery, which was deleted without any discussion. If you note the photos, they show details not available in other images here. If you want to discuss this, do it here. Thanks and have a blessed day. -- K72ndst ( talk) 04:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The first footnote states that LT Murphy is deserving of the GWOT service medal. This is incorrect. He is entitled to the expeditionary medal, having served in the war on terror overseas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.61.40 ( talk) 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is Lt. Murphy's father. I have Michael's official Navy records showing not only the award of the GWOT service medal but also the GWOT expeditionary medal and the award of the Sea Service medal. Michael has 13 decorations in all.... I don't know how you document the award by reference other than to his official Navy record but the awards will show up in Michael's biography, now titled "SEAL of Honor: Operation Redwings and the Life of Lt. Michael P. Murphy, USN." by author Gary Williams to come out sometime next May-June 2010. At that time you will have a reference besides the official record which I have. 207.29.190.95 ( talk) 20:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
By current regs, he would absolutely get the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal for active duty service after 9/11. This is absent from the article's "ribbon rack" and needs to be fixed. As for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, if he received the Afghanistan Campaign Medal then he would not receive the GWOTEM for the same action - only if he deployed twice to a separate location. So, that part appears to be correct. - OberRanks ( talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (LCDR, USN)
Question....When does a Navy SEAL officer decide to vote on whether or not to silence sheephearders who stumble upon their position in enemy territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.57.68 ( talk) 02:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the team voted is verified by the sole survivor in an article referenced in the text so there's little doubt that they did vote on what to do about the civilians. Special operations units don't operate like the rest of the military. The entire team is involved in the planning and preparation of the mission and moral questions like the killing of civilians who incidentally jeopardize the mission are often resolved by consensus rather than arbitrary directives from the commanding officer if they aren't covered by the mission order. --
SEWalk (
talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
First, there was discussion about LT Murphy being the recipient of the
GWOTEM &
GWOTSM, but they're not listed. I found a reference to assist with the placement of said awards onto the rack displayed in the section.
General Dynamics
Bath Iron Works displays the
USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) christening program at their website,
http://www.gdbiw.com/sites/default/files/docs/Murphy112_Web.pdf
Second, rather than referencing each award (with the same reference, especially), it would be aesthetically pleasing to relocate the reference to the bottom of the section. Your thoughts?
Bullmoosebell (
talk) 07:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That's phenomenal,
Kumioko, thanks. What about the Awards table? Any thoughts of removing the
[1] from each individual award and emplacing the reference at the bottom of the page (so as to provide a pleasing look to the table without the bracketed numbers)?
FROM:
TO:
Bullmoosebell ( talk) 20:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Some general things that need to be fixed prior to submitting for FA
If you see anything else please let me know. Kumioko ( talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Read much on this and Mikey ordered his team to rotate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.194 ( talk) 23:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
149.142.24.213 ( talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Michael P. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael P. Murphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
can someone add the Museum named after him https://murphsealmuseum.org/ . 204.128.182.36 ( talk) 15:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree that this section is way too large. All of the subsections are unnecessary. However, the wholesale removal of it was a bit too extreme. I think it can be summarized and condensed down to a much, much shorter version, as long as it's properly sourced. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 23:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)