Talk:Marcus Luttrell

Criticism

The section on Criticism needs to stay, it's been sourced96.54.181.40 (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been sourced, FINALLY. The version I deleted was entirely unsourced.Khan Tiger (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual info deleted again

The ambush was intense, came from three sides, and included PK light Machine Gun fire, AK47 Fire, RPG-7 Rocket Propelled Grenade fire, and 82mm mortar fire. The ambush team numbered approximately 8 to 10 in size, and due to the overwhelming power of the weapons used, combined with the type of ambush (combined arms, from above, and well coordinated) forced the SEAL team into the northeast gulch of Sawtalo Sar, on the Shuryek Valley side of Sawtalo Sar. 184.66.191.164 (talk)

Someone said "For instance, your most recent edits say "8-10" enemy combatants - provide a source for that."

Well I provide sources and people still change things. How many legit sources must one give before things will be left alone. This is an amazing story by itself without telling lies. The criticism's of this man should be known.184.66.191.164 (talk)

This is getting Old

I have added legitimate sourced information about how this war profiteer lied about the number of enemy engaged. It get's deleted every time. It isn't right that this lair get's to make a movie and make millions, while his brothers in arms are dead in the mountains of Afghanistan. The truth of how he survived and how his fellow SEAL's were killed is amazing and heroic enough, why did he have to lie to make it more dramatic? He has been shunned by the SEAL community and labeled a lair by Mike Murphy's family, Murphy's father is quoted as saying that Luttrell told a completely different story to him. Luttrell has also been quoted as saying "No Texan, would let the truth get in the way of a good story"SteveJanes704 (talk)

It can be frustrating when your contributions are removed. Pay close attention to what the reasons are for removal, and address those issues here on the talk page. For instance, your most recent edits say "8-10" enemy combatants - provide a source for that. You also edited to include "exaggerates this further", this kind of statement is either original research (which is not valuable in an encyclopedia) or you have a source for this statement... include that source. If there is an issue with the sources that others are using, there are avenues to take those up with (see the links available at WP:RSN). Personally, I commend you for keeping a cool head, as you obviously have a personal interest in this subject. I also, personally, thank you for your apparent service. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have provided sources and then things are removed again. The entire article about operation redwings is linked, and it clearly states the number as being 8-10.SteveJanes704 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

SOURCES: "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/" "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.phpSteveJanes704 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)SteveJanes704 (talk)

The entire criticism section is an absolute joke. It reads like a blog entry written by someone with a vendetta againts Luttrell, and if the above comments are any indication, I seem to be pretty accurate. To state it is unworthy of an encyclopedic entry is an understatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.236 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, what's getting old is that you keep inserting the same poorly written bullshit into every entry that is even peripherally related to Luttrell.74.134.160.246 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs Citation

The entire Criticisms section is unsourced. I would think that posting those types of things would demand a citable source. The guy did, after all, nearly give his life for his country, and the other 3 actually did. Luttrell deserves better than to get smeared with no sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.197 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The entire section violates Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies.-Vartan Dadian (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed a statement saying that Luttrell would later regret not killing the unarmed Afghanis who later betrayed their position, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. This claim could be considered potentially libelous, so while I think it would be a very interesting addition to the article, it MUST be properly cited before it can go back in. Rudy Breteler (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not libelous in the least. Get your panties untwisted and look up "libel" in the dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.76 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is discussed in great length in the book, additionally in interviews with Luttrell, which can be found on YouTube, he talks about regretting not killing them. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, Luttrell made out of the village and back to the U.S. He paused when Lauer asked him if he still regrets his vote to let the herders live. "Every day. Every day," said Luttrell, who was awarded the Navy Cross for heroism last year. "It would be worth me doing the time in prison if my buddies were still alive, if that answers your question."[1] -- Esemono (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FOR ALL THOSE WHO STILL THINK THIS GUY ISN"T BULL SOURCES: "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/" "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php SteveJanes704 (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Navy Career

The article states that he retires from the navy in the 2007, without a source, and does not speak of his redeployment to the Middle East after his 2005 deployment. I do not have the complete details on hand, but I know they are cited in the book Lone Survivor, this should be clarified. (Guidence (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Facts Inconsistent with Speech

While listening to his speech given at the NRA, I noticed a number of inconsistencies between his speech and what's stated in his wiki page. The page says he served from 1999-2007, but he claims 10 years. He also states that after crawling for seven miles, he "rolled into this village" and was captured by the Taliban. The article states that he was given shelter by an Afghan tribe. His speech can be heard at No Nonsense from this Navy SEAL. Naugahyde (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the book he was sheltered in an Afghan village were Taliban found and tortured him before the Taliban were ejected from the village by village elders. -- Esemono (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

when he says "rolled in" that is just an easy way of saying it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.158.114 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several other inconsistencies as well. He talks about being tortured for days in one of his speeches, yet his book describes him being badly beaten, but said it didn't last longer than a few hours. Another eye opener are the arguments presented in the book "Victory Point." There are several facts about this entire operation that are disputed, which dramatically accuses people of lying about what really happened. I don't know what to make of this entire situation because Marcus Luttrell is a hero to many people, including myself. 216.14.232.224 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

it is fact that he lied to make himself money and to immortalize his fallen comrades. this should be known publicaly and every time I ost something about VICTORy POINT, it get's deleted. What do we do? SteveJanes704 (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

SOURCES: "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/" "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.phpSteveJanes704 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we please quit pretending that everything Ed Darack says about Luttrell is the undisputed gospel truth?74.134.160.246 (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dog Shooting Episode

This article initially gave Danny Dietz's name as Daniel "Danny" Dietz, when in fact Dietz's full first name is Danny, not Daniel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.198.174 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong Evidence Marcus Luttrell Lied about everything

I don't know if I am doing this right so bare with me. I have read from many reliable sources that most of what is written by Marcus in regards to OPERATION REDWINGS is false. I have tried many times to include this evidence with reliable references only to have it deleted, how can I go about getting this information out there?? Does anyone else know about all the controversy surrounding Luttrell's story?

SOURCES: "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/" "http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php

Here is some of the information i have gathered (shouldn't this stuff be included on BOTH the MARCUS LUTTRELL page, and THE LONE SURVIVOR PAGE:

The book describes "hundreds" of Taliban. Luttrell himself stated that there were no more than 20 to 35 enemy in his after action report. While analysis of intelligence later revealed a number somewhere in the range of 8 to 10, the Navy used a number more in line with Luttrell's original after action on the official Medal of Honor citation for Lieutenant Murphy: "BETWEEN 30 AND 40 ENEMY FIGHTERS...."

Initial intel, prior to the launch of Red Wings, put Shah's force at up to twenty ACM. This intel came not from one source, nor one type of source, but from multiple, cross referenced sources. Furthermore, the small villages of the Korangal Valley / Sawtalo Sar / Shuryek Valley region--throughout the mountains of the Kunar, for that matter--cannot sustain numbers larger than twenty for very long; it is a logistical impossibility. The locals there can barely survive, much less feed and house a small army. Among Shah's group were two men who each carried, in addition to a weapon, a video camera. Two videos of the ambush were made--one showing footage of the ambush and then the weapons and gear pillaged from the SEALs, and another, both were authenticated by the military--even without that nod, their authenticity is obvious. The highest number of men that can be counted at any one time (including videographers) is six.

Lone Survivor was written in its entirety by Patrick Robinson (a British writer who primarily pens military fiction titles, many of which portray U.S. Navy SEALs), based on unrecorded interviews of Marcus Luttrell by Robinson. The writing was done while Luttrell was subsequently deployed to Iraq.

In Lone Survivor, and countless articles written about Red Wings, Lieutenant Michael Murphy supposedly put to vote whether to kill unarmed Afghan civilians who soft compromised his team. This ended up being a central pillar to the overall story, and hence, countless blog and online discussion board posts (and print and online articles) on rules of engagement and morality in warfare. Murphy placing something like this up to vote almost certainly did not happen. Marines who were interviewed and had intimate knowledge of Luttrell's after action report stated nothing said anything about a vote. The mere suggestion of a vote infuriated a number of the other men involved in the Operation. Of note, the portrayal of Murphy putting to vote the execution of unarmed civilians not only outraged members of the military, but didn't sit well with his family. When asked about the suggestion of a vote, Murphy's father has been quoted as saying "That directly contradicts what he(Marcus Luttrell) told [Murphy's mother] Maureen, myself and Michael's brother John in my kitchen, he said that Michael was adamant that the civilians were going to be released, that he wasn't going to kill innocent people ... Michael wouldn't put that up for committee. People who knew Michael know that he was decisive and that he makes decisions.

The "narrative" of a four-man SEAL team being inserted and taking on an army of dozens or hundreds under the leadership of the top lieutenant of the most wanted individual in modern history makes for a great story line, but the reality of Operation Red Wings is far more complex, far less "hollywood," and involves many more entities than is portrayed in Lone Survivor.

The true story of what really happened can be read here Operation Red Wings, misquoted in the novel by Patrick Robinson as "Operation Red Wing"

The bottom line with respect to the four-man SEAL team is that they were vastly outgunned and out positioned, by an enemy that had excellent cover from the thick forest surrounding the Northeast Gulch, who knew the terrain well, and who coordinated a fierce combined arms attack utilizing a variety of powerful weapons systems. Whether eight to ten or eight hundred to one thousand, it didn't matter. This was an overwhelmingly powerful ambush, especially given the RPG and PK fire, and the steep, narrow, funnel-like terrain. 24.68.229.154 (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)SteveJanes704 (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Marcus Luttrell 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marcus Luttrell 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marcus Luttrell 2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Strength of Taliban Fighting Force

The Operation Red Wings article includes a range of (sourced) estimates for the number of Taliban fighters, including M.L.'s initial after-action estimate of 20-35. This would probably be good to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.19 (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The ambush was intense, came from three sides, and included PK light Machine Gun fire, AK47 Fire, RPG-7 Rocket Propelled Grenade fire, and 82mm mortar fire. The ambush team numbered approximately 8 to 10 in size, and due to the overwhelming power of the weapons used, combined with the type of ambush (combined arms, from above, and well coordinated) forced the SEAL team into the northeast gulch of Sawtalo Sar, on the Shuryek Valley side of Sawtalo Sar.184.66.191.164 (talk)

Orphaned references in Marcus Luttrell

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Marcus Luttrell's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ed_Darack_Victory_Point":

• From Ahmad Shah (Taliban): Darack, Ed (2010). Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers – The Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-425-23259-0.
• From Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10: Darack, Ed (2010). Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers - The Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-425-23259-0.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 04:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Luttrell's Role in the Misinformation

I appreciate everyone making the effort to make this page accurate, and although this guy is a war hero, I think that a section on Criticism is more than warranted based on the information sources already cited on the page. I just got done reading the book, having served in the military myself, and was pretty ticked off to find out how much of it was factually inaccurate from this article. I'll also go ahead and say I'm pissed that I read about what BUDS is like from a british news columnist. I think that this book should not be considered non-fiction since it clearly contains significant creative freedoms, mainly in the number of enemy involved. Also, is it factually accurate to call a something a "biography" OR "non-fiction" if it was written in first person by someone who is not that person?

I do, however, want to point a few issues in the criticism section that may warrant further consideration. StevenJanes704 did research indicating that not more than 20 people can be sustained due to the extreme nature of the terrain, which I'm sure is accurate and sounds correct. However, this does not mean that an externally funded Taliban force of significant size could not transport provisions to temporarily, during wartime, base their operations out of such a location. I can confirm that this does happen, somehow they are able to move a lot of stuff with goats.

The Navy is not going to change the language on the medal, but I think it is clear that immediately after his rescue Marcus Luttrell, in his official debrief, wrote what I think has to be assumed the absolute truth in that he believed at that point in time that the engagement was with somewhere around 30-40 enemy, which is what the medal was based off of. I think it is important to to know if the creative freedom clearly exercised in this book is coming from Patrick Robinson or Marcus Luttrell - I personally don't see a combat trained SEAL exaggerating enemy numbers five fold over his maximum estimate, exaggerating pre-operation intelligence of 10-20 to 80-200, and changing the name of the operation (even slightly). I feel like it is much more likely that these changes were made by Patrick Robinson, possibly with outright or tacit approval from Luttrell. Also, his page is completely bare of your findings StevenJanes704, I think he deserves the criticisms on his page as well. Those of you that have done the research for the criticisms section of this page, have you come across any information as to which of these guys is responsible for the inaccuracies? If so, could those be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpm5099 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC) – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 04:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more careful when fixing the ref tag. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 04:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The only source I can find for the inaccuracies is the one and only guy who survived the incident and went on to write a book about it that is soon to become a movie starring marky mark. Marcus Luttrell-War Profiteer184.66.191.164 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While, yes, a criticism section is probably warranted, the current one is by no means encyclopedia-quality. It contains no citations, Original research, and what content there IS that COULD POSSIBLY be verified, doesn't belong on this page. In fact, the entire section is copy/pasted from a comment BY the same person who did the original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan Tiger (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please delete this sentence

"Whether eight to ten or eight hundred to one thousand, it didn't matter." That's one godawful sentence to read in an encyclopedia. A complete copout. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.93.108 (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarify if I'm mistaken, but...

Shouldn't the entire criticism section be deleted until it's possible to verify the sources, as it falls under the living persons biography policy? While not necessarily libelous statements about Marcus himself, it seems entirely out of place here. Why is there a 'Criticism' section on this man's page, and not Patrick Robinson's page, or the book itself's page? It simply reads more like a personal attack on the survivor of that SEAL team, rather than a useful contribution to some sort of 'Controversy' that's surrounding him. Khan Tiger (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Line about Chris Kyle has no source or reference and should be removed

I have removed the line indicating Luttrell is friends with fellow NAVY SEAL Chris Kyle, Kyle is a respected member of their community and Luttrell has been shunned from all f there circles for speaking to the public. Until it can be sourced, and referenced, the sentence should be removed.02:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.181.40 (talk)

To those who hate and criticize Mr. Luttrell,

Why shoulnd't he profit? He gave some of the best years of his life, to the service of his country,was badly injured, and saw his friends get killed. Why shoulnd't he make some money off the experience? Especially given that he has donated large amounts to various vet related charities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.138.52 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His friendship with Chris Kyle.

Was mentioned multiple times in Chief Kyles's book, and Marcus is on tour with his widow Taya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.138.52 (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)