Jump to content

Talk:Michael Boorda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depression

[edit]

There was probably more to Boorda's depression than the relatively minor episode attending the V clasp (which apparently former CNO Zumwalt had verbally approved, against regulations.)

I attended one of Boorda's last public appearances just before his suicide. He introduced former Pres. GHW Bush and said "Mr. President, you will always be our commander in chief." After Boorda's death, some DC insiders said that Mr & Mrs Clinton were extremely unhappy and communicated that fact to him, either directly or thru the Navy Dept.

Another factor may have been the criticism Boorda received from the retired community (especially some former admirals) over his failure to defend his vice chief, ADM Arthur, from a politically motivated "vendetta." Arthur, an aviator, had supported an evaluation board's decision to ground a female student helicopter pilot who was flunking flight training. She complained to her senator (I don't recall which one) and he in turn held up Arthur's nomination as commander of US Pacific command. Boorda was noticeably silent on the point, even though at the final appearance he introduced Arthur and described him as "my best friend."

Another factor that emerged from news reporting of Boorda's suicide is that he had fraudlently enlisted in the navy at age 16 or 17.

68.2.139.236 00:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was supposedly disliked by the traditionalists (especially zoomies and academy grads) for his positions on giving enlisted people more authority. He seemed to recieve enthusiatic welcomes by large enlisted crowds, but supposedly often got a chilly reception in the wardroom. I'm told there weren't a lot of tears shed for him in the Pentagon. DesScorp 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it say at the end of the article that Boorda's Vs for valor were authorized. I have a citation from CNN that says otherwise. If no-one provides a citation for the fact that they WERE authorized within 7 days, I will edit and add the citation saying that they were NOT authorized.
cnn article is the first thing that shows up when you google "boorda" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.46.150 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple things to keep in mind when discussing his fraudulent military activities. Often the civilian population doesn't understand the military population's mindset. Therefore, an 'apparently minor' discrepancy in one may be highly disgraceful to the other. Such is the case of the medals. Faking a valorous medal for a service medal is highly disgraceful and illegal. Hundreds of people have been kicked out of the service and/or imprisoned for such activities. Coming from the top person in a branch of the service where everybody in the service looks at you... the disgrace becomes a very plausible explanation for suicide. However, enlisting in the service fraudulently at the age of 16 or 17 is something more often viewed as honorable because of the desire to serve one's country.Bristus (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same text

[edit]

The entire article has mostly the same text as the Arlington Cemetery info (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/borda.htm). Recommend revision.

That's public domain, so not a problem. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not public domain; it's a private website. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

[edit]

The section on his suicide leaves much to be desired. I felt the first part was reasonably NPOV but was not properly cited. The second part, however, is egregiously POV, stating as fact that the Clinton administration was "attacking" the Navy. It reeks of politicized defensiveness. This needs to be cited and rewritten.

Another suggestion is that something should be in there about his tenure as CNO, not in the context of his suicide. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "rumors" that Admiral Boorda was actually murdered were the fantasy of a man who died in May 2006, Sherman Skolnick. The citation given in the article is nothing more than a link to his website with his rantings about that subject. He was a paranoid conspiracy theorist and the mere suggestion that President Clinton was going to be arrested for selling secrets to China is absurd and ludicrous. The Admiral was a poser, pure and simple, and he blew his brains out because he couldn't live with what he had done. The whole section beginning with "There have been rumors" needs to be removed to maintain the integrity of this entry.

How many people have you ever heard of committing suicide by shooting themselves in the chest, and then the autopsy is not allowed to be released, and there are TWO suicide letters? I like the way you respond to the word 'conspiracy' the way the CIA would want someone to, a perfect 'slide', good to know the editors of Wikipedia are completely lacking in independent thought, curiosity and are run instead by cognitive dissonance. This article reeks of a smear campaign. How many of the IP's of editors for this site trace back to Langley, VA anyway?--151.13.0.114 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Admiral was a poser, pure and simple"…how could anyone possibly believe that given the evidence indicating that he made an honest mistake? This sounds like something some kind of military-worshiping bootlicker who thinks "the troops defend our freedom" would write. (Oops, violated WP:PA, but then, so did the OP, if one broadens the policy to apply not only to editors. And, um, I bet most soldiers are nice people who have only the best intentions. At least the ones in my family were.)—GreenWeasel11 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section

[edit]

I removed the old section titled "Boorda's awards were proper." I'm not sure that whoever at the anon IP that posted the story even read what they posted. It clearly states in that article on arlingtoncemetery.net that the Board for Correction of Naval Records had to rule on the case regardless of what Zumwalt wrote. They ruled in 1999 on a petition filed by one of Boorda's sons in 1998 and the link is in the article. Here is the link to the ruling just in case: Ruling by BCNR on Boorda. Please stop the vandalism on this. I appreciate the fact that someone added his Arlington headstone as that made a nice addition, although I thumbed it and added a caption for better readability, but do NOT re-add anything stating that the V devices were authorized. Atlantabravz (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not being in the know: Would Adm. Zumwalt authorize the 'V's and later write the letter because of knowing of some action Adm. Boorda was part of but which was/is highly classified and would the Navy later do the public review as if that hypothetical classifed action never happened ? Just trying to make sense of the known facts as they do not seem to make much sense otherwise. JB. --92.195.26.168 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a name

[edit]

Edited to add the name of the female SNA involved, with whom I attended Navy flight training. Someone who's good at this really ought to research and create a page on her--it would be quite a story, especially if it included a real timeline of events, her demands on the Navy, etc. USNPilot (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boorda-Arthur matter

[edit]

While suicides get no protection under WP:BLP, a year is certainly long enuf to tolerate the failure to of all comers respond to an unsupported-attribution tag, and i've removed

Critics charged that Boorda had sacrificed Arthur to improve the Navy's image on sexual harassment following the Tailhook incident.[who?] The volume of complaints prompted...

The same vagueness that was explicitly noted by the tag envelops as well the matter of degree, and "prompted" can never be stated as fact since the only potentially authoritative info -- a statement by him -- can never be distinguished from from a self-serving falsehood.
--Jerzy•t 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Section on Vietnam Service

[edit]

There's an essential extra section required in this biography, and that's details about his service in Vietnam that are ultimately tied into the medal controversy.MariaMitchell (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boordajeremy.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Boordajeremy.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS Parrot

[edit]

The USS Parrot (MSC-197)does not appear to have been off Vietnam at any time. She was a 144 foot minesweeper stationed on the east coast during the time frame mentioned and doesn't appear to be capable of deployment to Vietnam. Was he not in Vietnam, not her captain, or am I crazy and that little thing went to the other side of the planet for a few of years?

Rock4arolla (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sources I checked indicated that Boorda's second Vietnam tour was on USS Brooke, not USS Parrot.
Billmckern (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I served aboard the USS Brooke (DEG1) and Adm. (then LCDR) Boorda was the Executive Officer (XO). The Brooke was attached to Yankee Station/Gulf of Tonkin on several Westpacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firechief625 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeremy Michael Boorda. 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:

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) 11:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Boorda&oldid=1206374518"