# Talk:Michael P. Murphy

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)

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)

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 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)
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, those are lieutenant's bars. See Template:US officer ranks. — jwillbur 17:28, 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).

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)
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

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)
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) 

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)

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)

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)
It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The details of the monument at the post office are unnecessarily detailed. Cut out the parts that don't pertain to Murphy directly.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Not Yet
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)
"...was submitted as bill H.R. 4101 to the 109th Congress." - Needs a ref.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"...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)
The inscriptions on the post office need to be cited.
Done, removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass No problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Not Yet
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)
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Not Yet
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)
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:
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)
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)
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) 

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 map given to the U.S. Navy SEALs detailing their mission.
Wrong caption. If someone steal images at least get the captions right and FFS credit the source where it was stolen in the first place 2607:FEA8:620:5617:D508:C049:1D34:212A (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2022 (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) 

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)


### New Section
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)

You also have to remember that these guys live, work and bleed together. They are all highly intelligent and trained to work as a team, there like brothers so they would be more prone to discussion of how to deal with the sheepherders than a normal unit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 4 July 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)

Sorry I haven't fixed that yet. I have a couple references that show those and I will review them this weekend and get that fixed. In fact I think we should be able to get this article to Featured status wihin the next month or two with fairly minimal effort. Lemme look into that andn see what we need to do. In addition to the book itself we should be able to reference his military personnel records as a source for a couple reasons. They are in the custody of the National Archives and most information including military service records are available to the public (even if they do charge a small fee to get them). I also do not believe this would violate the original research policy of WP because it does not require us to generate an opinion or hypothesis after reviewing the information. We just have to have the "reference) and read it. Of course the fact that his father has his military records and has weighed in verifying the information in a discussion above also IMO, is a verification that the information is accurate. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That's phenomenal, Kumioko, thanks. What about the Awards table? Any thoughts of removing the  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)

I think removing the 2's is a good idea. I think we need to do it a little different than the example but I think we can get by with adding a note below the table that states the references. --Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Done, I think that looks a little cleaner without referencing every cell in the table...Good Idea. --Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some general things that need to be fixed prior to submitting for FA

Navy bio is marked as an unreliable source. Why?
Replace Ref 13, FindaGrave
Merge 23&24
Expand Early life
Expand military career
Find a ref to the Honor above See also
Replace ref 21, Dead link
Replace citation needed tag under operation
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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hYPzrHnl?url=http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/med_of_honor.html to http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/pis/med_of_honor.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202133018/http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/first-set-pics-from-peter-bergs-lone-survivor-shows-off-mark-wahlberg-eric-bana-and-emile-hirsch-in-uniform to http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/first-set-pics-from-peter-bergs-lone-survivor-shows-off-mark-wahlberg-eric-bana-and-emile-hirsch-in-uniform
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-murphy-medal%2C0%2C2605432.story?coll=ny-sports-section_nav
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113085927/http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/oc.html to http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/oc.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdf
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)