Talk:Lone Survivor (book)

Strong Evidence Marcus Luttrell Lied about everything
I also feel the truth contradictory information should be out there. i have tried and tried to add this inifromation WITH proper references only to have it deleted and then warned that I ill be banned if I try to include the truth about Marcus and his story.SteveJanes704 (talk)

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" 8-10 fighters. SteveJanes704 (talk)

How do I go about this if no one objects, and I have sources can I post this stuff an expect it to not get deleted? 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.SteveJanes704 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Much of what I read in the book by Luttrell seems completely implausible and fabricated, not to mention logically-inconsistent or contradictory. Azx2 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations for Criticism section required
There are no citations at all in the critism section that apply to where there are pretty defenative remarks made about the combat. That needs to be fixed or removed until reliable sources are found. 96.252.232.188 (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The entire section is a total joke; it isn't just the lack of citations. The "author" of that section doesn't even try to hide his animosity towards Luttrell. The "author" states that his various assertions are undisputed facts, yet he provides absolutely no citations, whatsoever, to support any of his claims.  The following is a small list of some of those assertions:
 * 1. "Luttrell himself stated that there were no more than 20 to 35 enemy in his after action report."
 * 2. "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."
 * 3. "Murphy placing something like this up to vote almost certainly did not happen."
 * 4. The following statement, in addition to being unsupported by any citation, is also poorly written: "Marines who were interviewed and had intimate knowledge of Luttrell's after action report stated nothing said anything[sic] about a vote. The mere suggestion of a vote infuriated a number of the other men involved in the Operation."
 * 5. The following is the most ridiculous and most ridiculously biased: "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,'[sic] and involves many more entities than is[sic] portrayed in Lone Survivor."
 * 6. The "author" refers to Wikipedia as a source for the following statement: "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'". It should be noted that the Navy itself refers to the operation as Operation Red Wing.  The Navy has also referred to it as Red Wings as well. There seems to be confusion amongst various sources as to what the Operation is called.  Therefore, simply claiming that Robinson made a factual error, without describing the dispute surrounding the name,  is being disingenuous, at best.
 * 7. "Whether eight to ten or eight hundred to one thousand, it didn't matter." The "author" of this line has written an entire section calling Luttrell a liar, only to tell us near the end of the section that "it doesn't matter". Furthermore, I don't think I have read a statement on Wikipedia that so clearly reveals that an author is engaging in pure speculation.


 * The only citations for that ENTIRE section come at the very end of the section. Moreover, the same person is the source for the only three citations provided.  The author of the criticism section is calling Luttrell a liar, period.  Going beyond the question of bias, if you are going to do that, you have to provide adequate citations from reputable sources.  Let us take a look at those sources, shall we? Reference #8 is a dead link.  Reference #9 is a link to a Wikipedia entry on a book written by Ed Darack entitled Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers-The Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan. It should be obvious that citing a Wikipedia entry on a particular book is NOT THE SAME AS CITING THE BOOK ITSELF(I have never before seen someone use Wikipedia as a source for an entry on Wikipedia).  If you are citing a book(the reference section indeed lists Ed Darack's Victory Point as the source, not a Wikipedia entry concerning Victory Point), you have to provide page numbers, edition used, publisher etc. You can't just link to a review of the book in the NY Times, for example, or provide a link to a Wikipedia entry about the book in question. Reference #10 is a topographical map accompanied by no explanatory text; it is essentially worthless.


 * The work of Ed Darack is used as the ONLY source in the Criticism section. Darack is cited as definitive proof that Luttrell is lying, particularly in regards to the number of enemy troops he encountered during the operation. However, the Navy's own numbers are completely different than Darack's. A perusal of the "Erroneous and exaggerated information" section indicates that the number of enemy encountered is in dispute. Why then is Darack the only source cited in the Criticism section?  Why is the Navy also not cited? And while I am again on the topic of citations, I will note that at least two of the citations in the "Erroneous and exaggerated information" section are wholly inadequate.  The author of those sections seems to be completely confused as to what passes for an acceptable source.  Reference #14 is entitled "Lone Survivor Smackdown".  If one clicks on that link, one is directed to a blog(a category of source that is inherently questionable), the contents of which are behind a paywall. However, if one is determined enough, one can read the text that is behind the big box prompting one to login to to the Foreign Policy website. As with the Wikipedia entry on one of Darack's books, the entire blog entry is devoted to discussing, get this, the claims made in Darack's book and a related article, also written by Darack. So Reference #14 is not an independent source, rather it is merely a restatement of Darack's work, with some snarky commentary thrown in, just in case one was unsure if the source was acceptable or not. Let us examine another source, Reference #13, that is used to back the claims that Luttrell lied and exaggerated the number of enemy present. The reference used is a blog. But that is not the most important point. The blog entry in question gets its information concerning the errors in Luttrell's book primarily from Ed Darack. So, once again, we see someone indirectly referencing the work of Ed Darack without properly citing it. Incidentally, some of the assertions in that blog entry that do not rely on Darack's work have been proven wrong with the passage of time. In addition, as with Reference #14,  the tone taken by the author of the work used for Reference #13 is completely inappropriate for a source cited in a supposedly encyclopedic entry.  In regards to the number of enemy combatants encountered, the author of the "Erroneous and exaggerated information" section cites multiple sources, despite the fact most of them ARE REFERRING TO THE SAME WORK, a work the author of the last two sections NEVER properly cites. There is some serious reference-padding going on in this entry. The only information that seems to be properly cited and sourced is that from the US Navy itself.  The poor quality of the sources and the improper citation of those sources are not the only problems in regards to the sources used. In regards to the Criticism section, the author seems to think it is OK to write citation-free paragraph after citation-free paragraph if he just sticks the citations at the very end of the section. Needless to say, it doesn't work that way.


 * Given the blatantly biased tone of the "Criticism" section, the dearth of citations, the poor quality of the rare sources that are cited and the improper placement of citations in that section, the entire section needs to be deleted immediately. The "Erroneous and exaggerated information" section is a little bit better, however, several of the sources used probably do not meet Wikipedia guidelines and thus any information obtained from those sources either needs to be deleted or gotten from another source.74.138.46.163 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agreed and have removed the section. The whole thing reads like original research. Before any of it is added back to the article, reliable sources must be added to support it and it must be rewritten in a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. - Kollision (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While the criticism section is better than it was, some of the same problems are evident. Reference #9, as I mention in an above comment, is a blog, a questionable category of source to begin with. As I also point out in an above comment, that reference is merely a restatement of the work of Ed Darack. If you are citing Ed Darack's book, cite it. Why do you also need to cite a smartass blog post that is nothing more than a regurgitation of Darack? It takes all of ten seconds to determine that reference #9 is merely a restatement of Darack. And in case there was any doubt, the author specifically states that he is getting his information from Darack's book. The same can be said of Reference 10, a source that is really not much more than a review of Darack's book. The next-to-last sentence of the "Accuracy" section is followed by three citations; all three citations are for information from the same exact work by the same exact person, Ed Darack.  Again, someone is deliberately padding the references to give the false appearance of some sort of critical consensus concerning Luttrell, when in fact only one critical source is being cited.  This is an important issue for the simple fact that Ed Darack is being put forth, by one particular editor, as an unimpeachable source whose research on Luttrell is the gospel truth, period. However, despite the attempt to create an impression of a negative critical consensus regarding Luttrell, this is really a case of Darack's word vs. Luttrell's.74.134.160.246 (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lone Survivor (book). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140114090628/http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/soa.html to http://www.navy.mil/moh/mpmurphy/soa.html

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) 14:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lone Survivor (book). 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/20090223193921/http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/12/223964.aspx to http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/12/223964.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/201101/?pg=65

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) 17:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)