Talk:Michael P. Murphy

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Rklawton (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lord Love Him and His Family and Give Them The Guidance and Wisdom To Do What Is Right."

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Phone

message: 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)
thread_title: Silver Star?

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

message: 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)
thread_title: Caption for image <nowiki>[[File:Parents of Michael Murphy with monument.jpg|photograph]]</nowiki>

message: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistency in number of enemies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title: primary source

message: 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)
replies: text: In the Navy, those are lieutenant's bars. See :Template:US officer ranks. — jwillbur 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake with rank

message: 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.http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/faq.html#WOD1
*
What do you think? - K72ndst (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Its fixed now. --Kumioko (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Honors and tributes

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the review and I appreciate the assistance.  I will start working on them. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick review while you wait for the GAR

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thanks

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Expeditionary medal

message: 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)
thread_title: New Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rules of Engagement? 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GWOTEM & GWOTSM & reference/s 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre FA discussion and review process 

message: 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)
thread_title:  He ordered his team to 'rotate' 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  tag to http://library.constantcontact.com/doc207/1102117931138/doc/eAU7A2Z4CoZIwIQA.pdf
*Added  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: can someone add the Museum named after him https://murphsealmuseum.org/ . 204.128.182.36 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy seal musuem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy section