Talk:Michael P. Murphy

"Lord Love Him and His Family and Give Them The Guidance and Wisdom To Do What Is Right."

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)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Phone

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)

It was, indeed, a cell phone. Marcus Luttrell devotes some time to Murphy's act of making the call in his book, Lone Survivor. The relevant text in the book is, "And he groped in his pocket for his mobile phone, the one we had dared not use because it would betray our position." - Ageekgal (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Silver Star?

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)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption for image [[Image:Parents of Michael Murphy with monument.jpg|photograph]]

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)

Inconsistency in number of enemies

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)

primary source

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 is sufficiently titled as the official Medal of Honor citation as to avoid any confusion. I don't see what your problem is with it. SJSA 02:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a primary source in its totality, that's not in Wikipedia scope. We should rather present the informations in this text, rather than copy-pasting. --Lilyu (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand that this an official Medal of Honor citation? Please review some of the other articles on Medal of Honor recipients, the official Medal of Honor citation must be included. SJSA 11:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake with rank

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, those are lieutenant's bars. See Template:US officer ranks. — jwillbur 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Honors and tributes

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).

• August 18, 2005: CrossFit recognized Murphy by naming one of their hero workouts, "Murph," in his honor.

• "Explain the Hero Workouts". CrossFit. August 18, 2005. Retrieved 2009-03-18.

What do you think? - K72ndst (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although I am sure that it was done with the best of intentions there are better honors to highlight in the article than this one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you I will work on getting that on his biography. I need to find a reference that reflects it but in the mean time I will add a note that states that he also received that. If you know of a reference that reflects it or if you notice anything else out of place or missing please let me know or leave a message on this page and I will take care of it.--Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the missing medal you mentioned but I messed up the alignment of the table a little. I had to request some assistance from a couple of my fellow editors but I should have that fixed in the next couple hours. --Kumioko (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Its fixed now. --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that he may rate the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal but I'm not 100% sure. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Expeditionary medal

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)

Actually its possible he rates them both. I am still looking into it. He absolutely rates the service medal but may also rate the expeditionary medal for his service in Djibuti and Qatar. Since he went to Afghanistan after the Afghanistan campaign medal was created he would rate that in lieu of the expedition but depending on how long he was in the other 2 locations I mentioned he may also rate that. Either way since the expeditionary medal is not in any of the references, I cannot add it to the article unless I can either find a reference stating he got it or can prove without a doubt that he met the requirements for it.--Kumioko (talk) 23:35, 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)

Quick review while you wait for the GAR

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:

• there was a bit of overlinking, I have fixed most of it but I might have missed some so I suggest going over it and checking that terms are wikilinked only once on first mention (the infobox doesn't usually count in this, so terms in the infobox can be linked there and once in text);
• the lead is quite short for a GA, usually the reviewer will ask for it to be expanded to up to four paragraphs, so I would suggest maybe trying to do that now before the review;
• Citations: the rule for a B class review in the Military History project is at least one in line citation per paragraph, so for a GA that is the minimum and even more can be requested (I have added a couple of citation needed tags where I feel a reviewer would ask for them, although you might consider adding more than just those, e.g. in the Other honours section and the section about the dedication of the post office.
• I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic to include the full citation of the Medal of Honor and the inscription on the monument. The citation for the Medal of Honor is probably acceptable but the monument inscription is possibly a stretch. The same goes for the images of the medal ribbons (although this is a matter of personal opinion and amongst the Military History project members there is considerable debate about this with some favouring the inclusion of such images and a similar number of those against it, thus there is no concensus on this matter).

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)

Thank you for the review and I appreciate the assistance. I will start working on them. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

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=79028846256324.185.231.182 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Daniel J. Murphy

I see what your talking about regarding the ribbons, I am sure its correct then. On behalf of all those who have worked on this article your welcome, and it was our pleasure. Also, thank you for sending the link. --Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The lead should summarize all of the article. Briefly mention some of the things in the "honors and awards" section in the lead.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The "Operation Red Wing" and "Death and Burial" sections are somewhat confusing, switching back and forth from the battle to the aftermath. The sections should be reordered so "Red Wing" contains all details of the actual fight first, and all the details of the other casualties and their medals after that.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "Murphy's remains were found by a group of Soldiers" - what kind of soldiers? what nationality?

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The silver star should be mentioned in the prose; when and how did he win it? The silver star is a pretty high award by itself; details about it can't be left out. If it turns out that the star was upgraded to the MOH, then it should be removed from the list of awards.

The star is seperate from the MOH, as far as I can tell he did get them for the same thing BUT they didn't upgrade the silver star to the MOH they gave him both. Since the MOH takes a couple years or more to get approved and its so rarely granted that the unit probably submitted and approved him for a silver star thinking it unlikely the MOH would be approved. I am just guessing though since I cannot seem to find the citation for the Silver Star yet. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The details of the monument at the post office are unnecessarily detailed. Cut out the parts that don't pertain to Murphy directly.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   1. The first graph in the "Honors and awards" section should be referenced.

For this one are you talking about the paragraph or the ribbon display...or both? --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Both, preferably. —Ed!^(talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I got this but you might want to take a look and see if I captured what you needed me to do. I don't like the table with all the refs in it by the way so if I can just put it once that would be preferred. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "...was submitted as bill H.R. 4101 to the 109th Congress." - Needs a ref.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. "...was signed be President George W. Bush and became Public Law No: 109-256." - Needs a ref.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The inscriptions on the post office need to be cited.

Done, removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The detail about the pending biography also needs a ref.

Done. Took it out for now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I took the bio book out for now because the ref I had doesn't work anymore. Once its released or when it gets listed I will put it back. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet

   1. The article has a clear slant towards the Americans. Even an article such as this one must be fair and balenced. Remove any references to "enemy insurgents" and such. These terms need to be replaced with more neutral and specific terms such as Taliban militia or tribal fighters or something like that.

In my opinion calling them enemy insurgents isn't biased because thats what they are, just like we are there enemy. I don't even know if the refs tell whether they where taliban or tribal but I will find out and try and reword it a little. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I reworded a couple things so I think this should be more neutral. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned with the term "Enemy." While it is a contentious subject, the American forces and the insurgents are simply two beligerents in a conflict, in the neutral eyes of history. No one is the "enemy." —Ed!^(talk) 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I reworded it enough to meet this but let me know if I need to tweak it some more. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Not Yet

   1. The gallery contains too many images, which I would recommend either removing or placing in the prose.

Done I removed the gallery and incorporate the remaining image. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   On Hold while issues are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All right. I feel that you have addressed the issues I brought up to my satisfaction. Since Abraham is also satisfied, I think that the article now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done. —Ed!^(talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ok, breaking this comment into its many parts let me respond to each:

1. I will remove some but I believe that the see also section is relevant and I believe that linking to the only other recipients in the entire war is appropriate.

Removed some. --Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the link to the MoH recipients list is sufficient here, as it not only links to all other Iraq recipients, but all in general. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I will try and trim down the subheadings and tidy this section up a bit but I don't really see a difference between leaving them as honors and awards other than personal preference. I can change it but why. --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not have to name it "Legacy" if you wish, I just think it is the most appropiate. At any rate, the sections I mentioned above should still be re-worked into the one, single section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I also do not agree that note 1 is original research, the article in WP clearly shows the criteria for it and the biography shows that Murphy met the criteria. Not sure what you mean about the other military awards, do I need to give a reference for each award or just one since they are all identified in the same reference? --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The note, I believe, is OR as you yourself have evaluated Murphy's career and service against the criteria of the medal, and judged he was eligible for it. You need a reliable, published source to state this, otherwise it actually is OR. As it currently stands, the military awards are completely unreferenced and could also be perceived as OR; they all need to be referenced. Thanks for your prompt replies, and I hope I'm not too much of a pain in the butt. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I am working on the ref but I concede that I may need to remove it for now. I will save that for last and if I still cannot find a ref I will remove it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I finished all the comments, I also added in a good bit of info about the battle and cleaned up some of the wording within some sections to flow a little smoother. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think most have been addressed now. Thank you for getting to work and addressing my concerns. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:10, 9 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)