Talk:Pete Hegseth

Controversies?

How is pointing out that Congresswoman Talib is an Hamas supporter controversial?-She is in fact and has been quoted as such. 168.103.165.237 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The source reports on Hegseth saying the congresswoman has an 'agenda', beyond support. What are your "quoted" sources? —ADavidB 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it. Nothing in the source suggested it was controversial. "Agenda" is a vague word, of course. StAnselm (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

NYTimes Controversy

In a list of "controversies" one of the included ones is that he mocked the NYTimes for not covering something but it turns out he was wrong. It appears out of place amongst the much more legitimate controversies listed. Gb003k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked it out. That (first) paragraph/sentence/period was an easy read. ('Not much to dwell over', was my initial thought. However, the next paragraph (about a different topic) was arguably not an easy read.)--For now i disagree with user:Gb003k, however my view might be a minority view. 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I added this back in because I saw it was removed before I checked this talk page. I remember it generated a substantial amount of press coverage back when it happened but I do agree it is less consequential than his other controversies. I guess I'm not super attached to it so if you have strong feelings about it, feel free to remove. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

'Time in service' as a full-time soldier

Should the article be more clear, about how many 'periods' has been a full-time soldier, and how many months each of those periods lasted?--Even if he 'only' had, say, two six-month periods as a full-time soldier, it would still seem like there is 'nothing to take away' from his remarkable full-time career. Thoughts? 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If we can find WP:RS that states the inclusive dates, I think that would be a great idea to add to the article. But, as he is living and currently serving in the Guard, I doubt those records will be easy to come by. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The military does not divide into "full-time" and "part-time." There is National Guard (state funded and Regular/Active Army (federaly funded). There is activated and deployed Guard, but they are still not the same. They are important distinctions for military and legal purposes.

His units deployment history is a matter of public record, both state and federal, excepting ongoing operations. His individual records may be different, at least in parts. OmnesJudicata (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The lede is terrible

The lede doesn't explain what he did in the military other than smearing him of war crimes. It currently reads: "He reportedly persuaded Trump to pardon three American soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes related to the shooting of non-combatants in Iraq. Hegseth, who was a platoon leader at Guantanamo Bay during his military service, defended the treatment of inmates detained there." This may be true, but does it really define his military service? Or him? Why is it in the lede, particularly since it includes weasel words like reportedly? 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:25E2:50A:A2C8:1302 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Especially this, since it comes out of nowhwere and begs lots of questions - it isn't immediately clear why Hegseth would need to "defend" the treatment. "Hegseth, who was a platoon leader at Guantanamo Bay during his military service, defended the treatment of inmates detained there."| 205.193.239.44 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

His advocacy for soldiers accused of war crimes is noted by almost every reliable source, so I restored a shortened version of what has been in the second paragraph since 2021. Llll5032 (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

This should be removed: Questions about Hegseth's qualifications have been raised by Democrats, Republicans, and those close to President-elect Trump, with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski saying, "Wow," and numerous defense officials saying, "Everyone is simply shocked."[43]

This is editorializing at its lowest especially if you read the referenced article in full and presents only negative response to the naming of Hegseth to the position. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't strongly care if this is included or not, it seems fairly trivial to me at least so far and even if it remains it probably won't in a year, so I tend to think it probably shouldn't stay since it's likely very time sensitive commentary. But I will also say, negative reaction can be a significant fact. It may even legitimately be one-sided if there is no prominent figures reacting credibly ('ima trust trump on everything' isn't a credible reaction) in an opposite way, I am not aware of any prominent senators who have said 'Wow is right, but a good wow, this guy is a brilliant choice, I absolutely think that a fox host should be running the DOD' Qalnor (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If it won’t be here in a year then there’s no need for it to be here now. Again, present facts not opinion and the only thing this does is to present opinion as fact which has no place in an encyclopedia. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I will say that Wikipedia is not exactly an encyclopedia when it comes to current events because, as much as it would like to be one, it is difficult to judge in the moment what that happened today will be significant in a year (much less many years which is a truer test of the question). If the criticisms fizzle out and he is nominated, these first reactions will be judged as irrelevant, but if criticism grows and his nomination dies then it is likely that the words of initial critics will be remembered more than critics who pile on. After the Thune election today republicans in the senate have sent a fairly strong signal that they are not Trumpist pawns. I still personally think this is likely to fizzle out, I do not think they will show resistance here as they would if he selected RFK Jr for Secretary of HHS. Qalnor (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. FifthFive (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (2)

The second sentence of the first paragraph begins, "A political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2014," The 2014 at the end should be changed to 2024. Theshindigg (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a news article saying he'd left Fox & Friends, but as a source, the Fox & Friends wiki page says he was a host until 2024. Also, the Fox & Friends site has him still included in the hosts list, but clicking on the link leads to a 404 page (only for Hegseth, not for other hosts), and archive.org had daily snapshots of his host page on the Fox News site until Oct 10, then nothing until Nov 13, when it archived the 404 error page. Theshindigg (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I noticed that [1] includes "was named the co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend” in 2017. Hegseth’s deal with the network ended Tuesday, Fox News said." In case it is decided further sourcing is required. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (4)

Needs to be edited to show that he does not wash his hands because he does not believe that germs exist. 2601:C2:1500:7640:BD4D:39AC:6B43:A835 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47201923

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/feb/11/germs-are-not-real-fox-news-host-pete-hegseth

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-pete-hegseth-washing-hands-b2646396.html

are these sources good enough? (sorry -- don't usually edit on here but i know there's media coverage of this situation) Notnullptr (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All three of those sources (not known to be conservative-friendly, especially The Guardian) reference the same bit of joshing banter among the hosts of the talk show in which he participated. When asked about it later, per the first BBC article:

'Mr Hegseth later told USA Today that his remarks were intended to be a joke.

"We live in a society where people walk around with bottles of Purell (a hand sanitiser) in their pockets, and they sanitise 19,000 times a day as if that's going to save their life," he said.

"I take care of myself and all that, but I don't obsess over everything all the time."

Of the public reaction, he said it was ridiculous how people took things so "literally and seriously" so that their "heads explode".'

So no, that wouldn't seem to be very strong evidence that he really "does not wash his hands or believe germs exist". Cathammer (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Cathammer. Trivial information with very little source material, and later detracted by Hegseth, seems unworthy of mentioning in this article at this time. Besides, what value would it add to the article in an encyclopedic way? I vote NO in support of Cathammer's comment. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (2)

The second sentence of the first paragraph begins, "A political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2014," The 2014 at the end should be changed to 2024. Theshindigg (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a news article saying he'd left Fox & Friends, but as a source, the Fox & Friends wiki page says he was a host until 2024. Also, the Fox & Friends site has him still included in the hosts list, but clicking on the link leads to a 404 page (only for Hegseth, not for other hosts), and archive.org had daily snapshots of his host page on the Fox News site until Oct 10, then nothing until Nov 13, when it archived the 404 error page. Theshindigg (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I noticed that [2] includes "was named the co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend” in 2017. Hegseth’s deal with the network ended Tuesday, Fox News said." In case it is decided further sourcing is required. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (3)

As a former university faculty member active in media and journalism startup spaces, I find the paragraph in the Military career section that begins with "In 2020, Hegseth..." (1) uses poor sources that report secondarily (re-report) earlier journalistic reports, those based on anonymous sources (only Newsweek, and it, twice), then (2) poorly represents the Newsweek recasting of the earlier published content, and thus (3) misrepresents what one can be certain about, regarding the history of the events involved.

We would point out that Wikipedia editors are under no restriction to limit their sources, or to propagate poor reporting by specific individual sources.

Here, we would note—just based on the two sources appearing—that the facts of the matter appear to be:

(i) that 12 NG members were stood down;

(ii) that by his self-reporting, Hegseth was stood down (placing him among the 12);

(iii) that according to official explanation, "two guardsmen were removed because of 'inappropriate comments or texts that were put out...' on social media";

(iv) that in contradiction, the AP, reporting on a DoD anonymous leak (but unverifable, as no AP source appears), "two guardsmen have ties to a right-wing militia group";

(v) that Hegseth self-reported in the Ryan podcast that he was stood down, giving a cross-tatoo the reported reason, attributing his intelligence (likewise) to an unnamed, anonymous source; and

(vi) that JimLaPorta of CBS tweeted the self-report, taking it at face value, and concluding that Hegseth was (per his self-report) one of the twelve NG members that were stood down;

(vii) that there is no means by which anyone might, based on these two sources, assign Hegseth (or any of the 12) to either the group of 2 (for which we conflicting accounts of cause for being stood down) or the group of 10 (for which we have poor or no account of cause for being stood down).

In short, strictly speaking, in the sources provided, we only have Hegseth's self-reporting that he was stood down, and that LaPorta believes the self-report. We know that Hegseth self-reports a reason (his tatoo), but that Garrett and Bickerton of Newsweek (see below) dismiss this self-report, while accepting the other (Hegseth's being stood down). Rather, Garrett and Bickerton combine reliable sourcing (a DoD statement) with less reliable information (the AP's reporting, based on an anonymous DoD leak, two possible reasons the 12 were stood down). In combining these sources of differing reliability, and setting both reasons—either of which may have something, or both of which may have nothing to do with Hegseth, per se—alongside the Hegseth's report of being stood down, the apparent aim is to propagate a poorly reasoned and poorly sourced insinuation—that we know with certainty why Hegseth was not present at the Biden inauguration.

It can likely be firmly established that Hegseth was not there (using additional, better sources), and various reasons which "may" explain his not being there can be presented (again, using better sources, including the AP and other reliable outlets). But we should not be presenting as certain, reliable historical knowledge, even if just journalism-based, that we know why a military individual was not not deployed at a certain time (based on anonymous sources on both sides of the issue). Neither Hegseth's pronouncements, nor anonymous sources we hope were reported by others (as no WP editor appears to have cited or has checked the AP) are reliable sources for an authoritative account of current events.

Request:

Change from:

That paragraph, as it currently appears.

Change to:

No paragraph appearing, for the time being.

[Hide from view the paragraph in question, until a registered editor with journalistic understanding in evaluating such sources as those summarised above and below can be tasked with reviewing those sources, and gathering further, more neutral and reliable sources, and rewriting the paragraph—to just state what is actually known, to the exclusion of conjecture, and without improperly stringing together content of differing levels of reliability and certainty, and without relying on anonymously sourced assertions on both sides. (It is fine to limit what is stated, if what we want to know cannot be reliably known.)]

73.211.140.61 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hegseth-stated reason for his being stood down—marginalised by the Newsweek reporting and likewise offered as second tier by the WP summary—as arising from his sporting a tattoo that might be linked to extremist groups, has now been substantiated by reporting from WSJ.com, reporting that includes interview of the NG security personnel identifying what was seen to be an incrimating photograph, and that individual's subsequent email calling the tattooed image evidence of a nascent security threat. See this article, for content that should clearly drive a rewrite of the poorly substantiated

"Military career" section,

beginning with "In 2020, Hegseth...".

We once again call on WP to pull this paragraph until it can be rewritten to better sources, now to include the WSJ reporting—which unlike the Newsweek article cited (and a second Newsweek article simply citing the first, and propagating its journalistic missteps), actually relies on verifiable information (interviews of named sources, and email evidence) rather than anonymous leaks to other news agencies. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific analysis regarding the above

The facts seem to be—drawn only from the two sources currently cited in the Wikipedia article, following the paragraph in question—

(a) Without linking to the original journalistic source, Newsweek reported that at first two, then an additional 10 National Guardsmen were stood down from a unit assigned to provide security for President Biden's inauguration, per reports of the Associated Press (AP, not cited in WP article), according to Garrett of Newsweek (January 19-20, 2021, cited in WP article);

(b) That two administration officials violated DoD media regulations, and leaked to the AP that "two guardsmen have ties to a right-wing militia group", words of same Garrett of Newsweek, re-reporting the AP stories (not cited in WP article);

(c) General D. Hokanson of the National Guard stated that "two guardsmen were removed because of 'inappropriate comments or texts that were put out there' on social media", words of same Garrett of Newsweek;

(d) Without linking to the original journalistic source, Newsweek reported "Hegseth was one of a number of National Guard members ordered to stand down" citing reporting from "CBS News reporter Jim LaPorta" according to Bickerton of Newsweek (November 13, 2024, cited in WP article; the CBS reporting not cited in WP article);

(e) The second Newsweek article then presents a Tweet (and only a Tweet), from LaPorta, stating "Interesting. Couple of years ago, I had a scoop which the Pentagon later confirmed that Twelve U.S. National Guard members were removed from securing then President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration after vetting. Turns out one of them was @PeteHegseth https://0lSzyOjzzm pic.twitter.com/QcQQmtUJJ1 ["t.co" removed from following "https://"] — Jim LaPorta (@JimLaPorta) November 7, 2024", thus the same Bickerton of Newsweek establishes the primary source for the claim regarding LaPorta, in this dead link to Twitter);

(f) Report then is made that "Hegseth claimed he had been due to help guard Joe Biden's 2020 presidential inauguration but was ordered to stand down because he had an 'extremist' tattoo", words of the same Bickerton of Newsweek (followed by a quote attributed to Hegseth, drawn from the linked podcast), from the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(g) A link, ostensibly to the Shawn Ryan podcast, connects successfully to the aforementioned Jim LaPorta Tweet (now X), and establishes the content of the Hegseth statements attributed to the podcast via an attached video, per the podcast link appearing in reporting by the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(h) The link also establishes that the conclusion of LaPorta, that "...one of them ['the [t]welve U.S. National Guard members... removed from securing then President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration after vetting...'] was @PeteHegseth", is LaPorta's comment on the self-report by Hegseth, in the podcast, per the podcast link appearing in reporting by the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(i) In further reporting from the podcast, Hegseth indicates he was not informed of a reason by his C.O. at the time of being stood down, and that later, on researching a book, he reached out to his own unnamed, anonymous source, "somebody in the unit who could confirm with... certainty, because he was in the meetings and on the emails... [that] someone inside the D.C. Guard trolled your social media, found a tattoo, used it an excuse to call you a white nationalist..." and had him removed from the assignment, per the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(j) The report concludes by repeating the content of the earlier Newsweek report by Garrett regarding the AP reporting, once again improperly setting alongside each other two quotes, one from the reliable DoD announcement, the other from an anonymous DoD source, restating the LaPorta conclusion without questioning LaPorta's acceptance of a possible self-serving self-disclosure by Hegseth in a podcast, describing Hegseth's tattoo and asserting, in a weasel-worded argument, the possible reasonable interpretation of the tattoo being a right-wing nationalist proclamation (in stating, "some right-wing nationalist groups have adopted Crusader imagery"), and then closes with a standard, boilerplate description of Hegseth's 2006 and 2012 deployments overseas with the Minnesota NG (noting his two Bronze Stars), all according to same Bickerton of Newsweek.

73.211.140.61 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. FifthFive (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

"... but was removed from that mission because he was one of twelve soldiers "linked to 'right-wing militia groups,' or found to have 'posted extremist views online".

How about replacing the end of the paragraph, with "He (and some others) were not chosen for the mission." 2001:2020:301:DC0D:6118:3C2B:A07B:137 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

People should know when others are linked to fascism. Ampersandcastles (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the Newsweek sources state Hegseth was linked to fascism. The anonymous user that started this thread is right. The statement as it stands is quite unbalanced and must be corrected. The proposed change is well stated. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the foregoing long edit request. Whether balanced or imbalanced, the statement is poorly sourced (on both sides, relying on clear bias-involved reporting—Newsweek repeating its own mistakes, and to oppose, content from an interview podcast). As such, it represents the poorest form of encyclopedic writing based on journalistic coverage of contemporary events. Rather that requiring the best analyses and journalistic sources in support of inflammatory accusations, both the prosecutorial and defensive aspects of this WP presentation are very poorly supported.

Hence, we have argued that the content should be removed until a careful search for further sources can be conducted, and then rigorous and scrupulous summary of those sources take the place of what is currently presented. [Among other things, the Newsweek reporting and its lockstep Wikipedia extract both juxtapose a fact known with certainty (based on a DOD disclosure) with clearly questionable information that journalistically demands independent verification not appearing (information derived from a single leak by an anonymous source, to the Associated Press, where care was not even taken to cite the AP source).] 2600:1008:B13A:C330:48B4:3682:DDEB:EFC0 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The cross and saying on tattoo are Christian, is is a leading image to the Crusades , he was a Warrior and is Christian and got the Tat it does not have any damn thing to do with white supremacy. I have a SS tattoo , I was a Marine Scout Sniper and many got them, we are not Nazis 2600:6C5C:6F3F:B5F4:5955:C571:D86D:CA (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Church

Does Pete Hegseth belong to a church or denomination? Docmo (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes - added. StAnselm (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB

I've removed the addition of an unsourced date of birth twice now. Please don't restore it without reliable sources. Per WP:DOB, the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. Toddst1 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone misspelled Hegseth as Hegeseth under "Israel-Palestine".

yeah that's about it, someone should probably fix that. 162.221.118.106 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Don't forget you can use the edit request template to bring requested changes with protected pages to the attention of registered editors. PianoDan (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pete Hegseth's Bronze Star Medals

There are two kinds of Bronze Star Medals: 1) for service, and 2) for a specific act of valor. The version for valor includes a "V" device on the medal. Is either of Pete Hegseth's Bronze Star Medals for valor? None of the few photos I have seen of him in uniform show clearly whether either of his BSMs is for valor; and I have found nothing in writing which addresses a BSM for valor for him. 2603:6080:8201:FF8F:DCCD:38AB:A4A3:FF44 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Most talk about him has a cynical tone

Everything he has accomplished has a cynical tone to it. If you're conservative, you can feel the negative vibes from the Wikipedia authors. This is why I do not donate to Wikipedia. It can often be very informative, but it is persuading people to think negatively about a very positive person.

So what if he withdrew his candidacy. He knew he had lost. So what if his brother was paid $100k...over 2 years...50k a year job...whoopti-do. He may believe the individuals who needed pardoned, really deserved it, and they were victims of leftist politics. He has a tattoo of a cross? Ooh, what an evil Christian.

I could go on, but this is crazy, slanted, leftist talk that only a leftists can lap up, an independent might be fooled, and a conservative can see right through your extremist, communist viewpoint. 24.113.161.58 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is true across all WP articles, especially concerning any political person (living or dead) or any social question. Also unfortunately, WP seems to support this nonsense. They publish their WP:NPOV style policies then hide behind that and “the people edit by consensus”. But the pattern of abuse is obvious. Before Hegseth was proposed to be nominated, there was no mention of most of the topics you called out above. Inexcusable and way too common practice. Like someone above said, it is no wonder why WP cannot be cited as encyclopedic. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@User:StAnselm, @User:Cannolis, @User:Skynxnex, @User:Toddst1, @User:PianoDan, @User:Qalnor, Please see our reply to the very long edit request above, asking that a particular paragraph in the "Military career" section be pulled. The further reply is date-time-stamped "04:13, 16 November 2024". The reply in question cites new WSJ reporting that further undermines the accuracy of the currently appearing, questioned paragraph. The reply to which we refer you begins, "The Hegseth-stated reason for his being stood down...". We again ask that this paragrpah, an inaccurate and likely biased derivative of Newsweek reporting, be pulled from reader view until it can be rewritten to the WSJ and other reliable sources citing solid journalistic evidence. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I fixed a spelling mistake, please don't pull me into this. PianoDan (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Cross

The article says that the Jurusalem Cross "is just a Christian symbol". According to its Wikipedia article, it is associated with the crusades. I propose to either remove this subordinate clause or correct it. Bdschi (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The statement is in a quote from Hegseth as a kind of explanation. It should stay. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 10:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, after switching to a larger screen, I saw that there are quotes around the statement. Bdschi (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Afghanistan

He deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, not 2012. He stayed from 2011 into 2012. While there, he was part of NTM-A(NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan) and fell under USFORA (US Forces Afghanistan). This was not a Minnesota National Guard mission although there were members of the Minnesota National guard assigned to the mission. 70.15.57.142 (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Rape kit

Rape kit was performed on October 12th, 4 days after the alleged rape. 2600:8800:180:18D:9131:CFF4:27A1:FD24 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability of one-time incidents

Currently, this is in the Fox News subsection:

On June 14, 2015, Hegseth accidentally hit a West Point drummer while axe throwing during a live segment in honor of Flag Day. Hegseth missed the target and the axe hit one of the people behind it. Footage of the accident soon became popular on the internet. In 2018 the drummer filed a lawsuit against Fox and Hegseth alleging that he has suffered "severe and serious personal injuries to his mind and body," and "permanent effects of pain, disability, disfigurement and loss of body function" as a result of their negligence.

In May 2018, Hegseth mocked The New York Times for ostensibly not covering a story about the capture of five ISIS leaders, referring to the paper as the "failing New York Times" even though the paper had already filed a report on the story.

I'm not sure about the notability of either of these stories. Should they be retained in the article? --FMSky (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:Notability is irrelevant and based on coverage both events are due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Any other opinions? Horse Eye's Back is somewhat known for always wanting to include these minor stories so I'm not sure his judgment is correct --FMSky (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat known for it now? Please substantiate your claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Also note that something which happens in 2015 and is then the subject of a court case in 2018 can not be described as a one-time incident... Although the second one could be unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, and your opinion doesn't always line up with the consensus 4. -- As I said earlier, we shouldn't always list these "On XY he did this, and then he did this, and on this date he said this!!!!!!" type of waste-of-time trivia with zero lasting significance. --FMSky (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

None of those demonstrate that I am known for anything... Please retract your claim. That isn't trivia, its all much more significant. His pants size is trivia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, whatever the case may be, I'm mainly here to gather some other opinons --FMSky (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The case is that instead of focusing on the content you made an absurd personal attack against me, a claim about my general reputation (not just your opinion of me) and then you failed to either substantiate that claim or retract it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not meant as an attack and I'm sorry if it came over that way, it's just what it seems like judging from some your reverts --FMSky (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not known for it then retract it. You can say your opinion of me, but you can't tell a lie about my general reputation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its just my personal view, I don't know about your general reputation lol, I should have worded it differently though, my bad --FMSky (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, lets speak no more of it. Do we agree that the first bit is more than a one time issue while the second bit may in fact be a one time issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess so but it still seems like trivia and doesn't add anything. Or at least we'd need a follow-up to that story. Did that lawsuit ever lead anywhere? FMSky (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Having a nice conclusion doesn't change its dueness, most cases like that just kind of end because they get settled out of court and neither side is allowed to talk about it. I would expand with coverage of the initial incident, but IMO more wouldn't be due and we cover all of the relevant facts. Its also been repeatedly brought up post-nomination, but not in any concrete ways which I think are worth including (its basically just people saying that it happened because its one of the few things related to the military you can point to on his record) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You asked for another opinion. Sorry I couldn’t chime in earlier. The first case should be in the article, but at least should contain a statement about the conclusion or pending nature. The second case is too trivial and should not be included. The article would grow significantly if we added every critique he ever made publicly which did not result in legal action or a public spat of some greater rapport. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 05:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is currently only 2,743 words of prose, we don't worry about the article being too large until 6,000... We want the article to grow significantly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Index of Hegseth life and accomplishments

funny how Wikipedia decides to list controversy and unproven accusations over his military accomplishments. Why? 2601:5CF:8680:9206:C956:CA67:599:4955 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

When potential editors see a perceived problem and don't correct it (perhaps expecting others to do so), content can become unbalanced. Identify reliably sourced information about the subject's military accomplishments, and it can likely be added to the article. —ADavidB 01:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Please add any notable information that you think is missing from the article. Remember (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

fr wiki lets anyone edit 💀 add ur stuff if its got sources n stuff ig Cononsense (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If you’re going to focus on legal issues you need to provide ALL evidence

What I’m seeing on this page is an edited restating of events without full disclosure. Reading through the released police report, there are passages such as: “ continued to search the video surveillance footage. I located additional footage of JANE DOE and HEGSETH together. The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking from the inner entry/exit door of Knuckles Bar. The video showed JANE DOE and HEGSETH walking together, with arms locked together. HEGSETH seemed to be talking and JANE DOE was smiling. Both did not have an unsteady gait. HEGSETH and JANE DOE are seen walking out of the lobby, still locked arms and headed towards the pool. The time stamp was 10-8-17, at approximately 0115 hours.” AND “B stated the conference had an after party. remembered ig JANE DOE consume a glass of champagn^no some vodka at the after party. stated JANE DOE did not seem intoxicated, but had a “buzz.”” AND “stated she was sitting at the bar and did not hear JANE DOE, and HEGSETH’S conversation. The three of them sat together and were exclusive in conversation. ■ did not know if JANE DOE and HEGSETH left the bar together, she stated she saw JANE DOE have one alcoholic beverage at the bar. ––– stated JANE DOE did not seem intoxicated to a point where she would not be able to care for her own safety. JANE DOE was coherent” AND “On 10-8-17, at approximately 0130 hours, two separate guests in building 4 had called the front desk to complain about a couple near the pool causing a disturbance and being loud. ––– J contacted hotel security, but she was busy, --- stated he left the lobby and headed to the pool. Upon arrival, ——— contacted JANE DOE and HEGSETH near the pool. The pool is located near Building 4 and 5.––– stated HEGSETH began to curse at ––– when he contacted JANE DOE and HEGSETH. HEGSETH told ––– that he had freedom of speech. JANE DOE intervened and told ––– that they were Republicans and apologized for HEGSETH’S actions, ––– stated JANE DOE placed her hand and arm on the back of HEGSETH and escorted him towards building 4 and 5. ––– stated he watched HEGSETH and JANE DOE disappear into the area Building 5. ––– ran back to the lobby. ––– stated HEGSETH was very intoxicated. ––– stated JANE DOE was not intoxicated, was standing on her own and was very coherent.” There is a reason it wasn’t pursued further because there is conflicting testimony by witnesses but that’s being left out and should be included if one is going to cite the Police report. An encyclopedia should not be slanted and present a biased view of events especially in regard to the biography of a living person. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding relevant cited material. Remember (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The section had tons of issues. I restored an earlier more appropriate version. @Remember:: Please find a consensus before restoring -FMSky (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There are several issues with doing that, including that the edit summary was very unclear and that you wiped out constructive edits that had been done in the interim. In my view, we there's too much reliance on statements related in primary sources to satisfy BLP. In fact, I'd say as a general rule we shouldn't be relying on primary sources here at all, including the police report. Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed all statements that used the police report as the source. Remember (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

References

FMSky mass deletions

User:FMSky has a history of mass deleting well cited and notable information on this page with no discussion. See [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. If you (or anyone else) want to delete such well-cited notable information, please bring it to the talk page so we can discuss before you or anyone else mass deletes notable well-cited information. Remember (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this editor undid your edits without having discussion here first. Of course, you've done the opposite in restoring the content. With the most recent removal, many abbreviated reasons were given in the edit summary. Perhaps you could respond here as to why you (presumably) believe these don't apply: WP:WEIGHT / WP:UNDUE / WP:BLP / TOO LONG / {{Overly detailed}} / STOP EDIT WARRING. —ADavidB 19:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think this is too long, overly detailed, or applies undue weight. This is a nomination for a cabinet level position and it is looking like it all may fail based in large part on these accusations. To cover that is notable. When I look at other similar situations, there seems to be a lot more coverage. See [9], [10], [11], [12]. Some of these have their own split off articles that have even more content. In general, I think User:PRRfan is doing a good job summarizing information so that we provide a concise accurate well cited version of the issue. I feel like his activity is much more in good faith than mass deletion of information. It also appears that user User:FMSky has a history of doing this with lots of other articles. See [13] [14] [15] [16]Remember (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

More edit wars by FMSky

User:FMSky is once again just edit warring and removing noted cited information and reverting my additions. See [17]. Can another editor please get involved so that this doesn't just become a war between FMSky and myself. Remember (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you heard of the concept of edit summaries? Which part of already stated in section Military, "Hegseth has opposed including women in combat roles, is unclear? --FMSky (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I've been editing here for twenty years. I'm familiar. You deleted various notable information that was as follows:

"At what point does the paper deem a 'relationship' unfit for publication? What if we 'loved' our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?", and claimed that "boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral

In a podcast with Jay Cutler and Sam Mackey, Hegseth said that women should not serve in combat roles: "Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse". Hegseth argued that men are "more capable" in combat roles because of biological factors.

In a podcast with Shawn Ryan, Hegseth said "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated".

And your description of these deletions was merely "already stated in section Military, "Hegseth has opposed including women in combat roles". Yes. that is a summary, but people should be able to read his actual statements on the issue. Why you are deleting them is beyond me. And you didn't explain your other deletion of the longer quoted statement. Remember (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

And now I see you have just reverted back again. Can some other editor get involved here. I have to go do other things in my life. Remember (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• "At what point does the paper deem a 'relationship' unfit for publication? What if we 'loved' our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?", and claimed that "boys can wear bras and girls can wear ties until we’re blue in the face, but it won’t change the reality that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral

This is now (partly, without the long quote) in the section LGBTQ rights

You make it sound like you did something new. You didn't the quote is still deleted like you did it originally without explanation. Remember (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Because the quote doesnt add anything. The main point was "the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral", which is in the article. Either way, I was forced to self-revert because of 3RR, so your preferred version is now in the article --FMSky (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Your position is that the quote "doesn't add anything" but that is just your opinion and others think the full quote does add something. You could just summarize the whole thing to "Hegseth believes homosexuality is sinful" but that doesn't capture his position as well as his own stated words on the subject. And your continued deletion of relevant well-cited information makes it seem like you are not editing in good faith. Remember (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Your editing behaviour is also highly concerning. Judging from your edits the last 10 days, you have exclusively edited the page of Pete Hegseth and it seems you want to add as many negative statements that you can find... Anyway, the problem with including the quote is that this is not even a statement by him. It says Hegseth "oversaw a team that railed against the homosexual lifestyle 1, but its not something that he himself ever said --FMSky (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to add any verifiable well cited information. I am the one that added the quote why the DA didn't bring the case. So I don't just add negative information. As far as the issue with the quote, the quote in question was written officially by the "Tory Editors" under The Rant with no one specifically is listed as author and he was the head of the Tory as the Publisher. So maybe he wrote it, maybe he didn't but the rant supposedly reflects the position of the publisher otherwise it wouldn't get published. See [18]Remember (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• In a podcast with Jay Cutler and Sam Mackey, Hegseth said that women should not serve in combat roles: "Everything about men and women serving together makes the situation more complicated, and complication in combat means casualties are worse". Hegseth argued that men are "more capable" in combat roles because of biological factors.

• In a podcast with Shawn Ryan, Hegseth said "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated".

This is now in the section Military

Again, no this information is not on the page. Remember (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

--FMSky (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

Can we remove the tag now? I feel like the matter has been summarized effectively. If someone has a better suggestion for how to fix the undue weight issue, please discuss here. Remember (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There are currently eight paragraphs that 'summarize' this alleged assault. That's more than any other section in the article – still undue in my opinion. —ADavidB 19:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it is more than any other section just says to me people should add more to other sections. Not take away from this section. When I look at other articles with similar accusations, it seems like this is not too verbose. I mean these accusations may derail the confirmation for the position of secretary of defense. That seems highly notable. But happy to defer to consensus. Remember (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I added the tag and I think it still belongs. One good way to think about it is if he were charged with a criminal offense, and if it would stop his confirmation, what length would we expect then? As far as a sexual assault allegation against a nominee, the Christine Blasey Ford accusation takes up seven paragraphs on the Brett Kavanaugh article but that was much more prominent, both in the coverage and in the historical impact on the #metoo movement. I think this section of the article is roughly twice as long as it should be. "Hegseth had sex with her and ejaculated on her stomach", for example, is completely extraneous if Hegseth was claiming it was consensual. That sort of thing happens millions of times every day. StAnselm (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's one way to do it in three paragraphs:

In October 2017, a woman told police in Monterey, California, that Hegseth had sexually assaulted her in a hotel room.

The woman, a 30-year-old, told police that the assault took place on October 7 at the Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel and Spa. She told police that she went with Hegseth to the hotel bar, where "things got fuzzy" and, she said, a drug may have been slipped into her drink. She told police she remembered "being in an unknown room with Hegseth", who took away her phone and blocked her efforts to leave. She told police she "remembered saying 'no' a lot" and that Hegseth had sex with her. She told police that she did not recall the incident for several days. On October 12, after she went to the emergency room for a rape kit test, the police started an investigation. Hegseth told police, and others later, that he did have sex with the woman but that it was consensual. The police referred the matter to Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine M. Pacioni, who declined to press charges, saying, "No charges were supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt". In 2020, Hegseth paid the woman as part of a non-disclosure agreement. Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Hegseth, later said his client settled in the face of "blackmail" and "false claims of sexual assault" only because he feared for his career.

The allegations, police report, and non-disclosure agreement came to public notice in November 2024, after Trump announced his intention to nominate Hegseth as U.S. defense secretary. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I like this version, mostly. a minor detail i'd add was that the alleged assault occurred during a California Federation of Republican Women conference. but i like this version otherwise. Cononsense (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that I think that is a detail worth mentioning. Remember (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hegseth's statement Hegseth described the allegations as a "he-said, she-said" dispute about a consensual encounter should be included. Why was it removed in the first place? --FMSky (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The important thing is that we have his claim that it was consensual. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a lot better. I think the first sentence of the second paragraph could go. The age of the woman doesn't matter. We already know it's at a hotel; the name of the hotel doesn't matter. The "and others later" further down is also extraneous. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the three-paragraph version too, though I think the second indulges in extraneous detail. After all, there will be more to say about this before we are done, one way or another. We are to write in summary style. Wehwalt (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the US Secretary of Defense gives two quotations of similar purport, either one should be deleted or one should be replaced by a non-opponent's quote. Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

In general I like the summary, but I don't think this sentence is accurate: "She told police that she went with Hegseth to the hotel bar, where "things got fuzzy" and, she said, a drug may have been slipped into her drink." That makes it sound like she and Hegseth walked over to a bar together whereas she came over in part because others were complaining about Hegseth's behavior. How about "According to reports, Hegseth was behaving "inappropriately" at a bar and a friend had summoned the women to "help ward off" the advances of Hegseth. While confronting Hegseth, the woman said that "things got fuzzy" and, she said, a drug may have been slipped into her drink." Remember (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the alleged assault did not take place on October 7. The meeting with Hegseth started on October 7 but the actual incident didn't happen until sometime after 2 am on October 8. So how about "told police that the assault and related events took place on the evening of October 7 and morning of October 8". Remember (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that can be more easily resolved by omitting the sentence, as I mentioned above. I think we also should drop the "confrontation" - there is no reliable source that states she confronted Hegseth (she may have been summoned to do so, but it's not clear she actually did.) StAnselm (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That she confronted Hegseth is supported by sources “After the event, the woman and others attended an after-party in a hotel suite where she said she confronted Hegseth, telling him that she “did not appreciate how he treated women,” the report states.” From [19]. Remember (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But she didn't confront him in the bar: the article you cited goes on to say, "A group of people, including Hegseth and the woman, decamped for the hotel's bar." So it wasn't much of a confrontation. Certainly not enough to be included in an encyclopedia. StAnselm (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it was a huge confrontation or a small one. The sources don’t say. They say that she was asked to come and help out when Hegseth was acting creepy towards others, she then confronted Hegseth and continues to talk/argue with him to such an extent that hotel personnel is at one point called because they are disturbing hotel guests. The point I was making is to just say “they both went off to a bar together” gives a misleading impression if you just condense it down to that. It makes it seem like they are going on a date and that there was no one else complaining about Hegseth’s behavior and that the woman came to the discussion just on her own and not to help out others. I’m happy to summarize but I don’t want a summary to misled. Remember (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

It's precisely because we don't know what happened (and even the woman's allegations aren't clear) that we should leave it out. They did go off to the bar together - it is not clear whether it was continuing the argument or whether they had been reconciled. StAnselm (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the language of "went to the bar" is inappropriate; I think "was with Hegseth at the bar" would be much better. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

So here is my suggested version

In October 2017, a woman told police in Monterey, California, that Hegseth had sexually assaulted her in a hotel room.

The woman told police that she was with Hegseth at the hotel bar, where "things got fuzzy" and, she said, a drug may have been slipped into her drink. She told police she remembered "being in an unknown room with Hegseth", who took away her phone and blocked her efforts to leave. She told police she "remembered saying 'no' a lot" and that Hegseth had sex with her. She told police that she did not recall the incident for several days, after which she went to the emergency room for a rape kit test, whereupon the police started an investigation. Hegseth told police that he did have sex with the woman but that it was consensual. The police referred the matter to Monterey County District Attorney Jeannine M. Pacioni, who declined to press charges, saying, "No charges were supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt". In 2020, Hegseth paid the woman as part of a non-disclosure agreement. Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Hegseth, later said his client settled in the face of "blackmail" and "false claims of sexual assault" only because he feared for his career.

The allegations, police report, and non-disclosure agreement came to public notice in November 2024, after Trump announced his intention to nominate Hegseth as U.S. defense secretary. StAnselm (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if you pointed out the accuser’s claims were contrasted by several eye witness statements contradicting her narrative, including the statement of hotel staff responding to visitor complaints of a loud exchange by the pool where the employee indicates that Hegseth appeared intoxicated and the accuser did not with the accuser leading Hegseth away or by the fact earlier the accuser’s companion stated the accuser did not appear intoxicated or out of control as the words of something being put in her drink would imply. This is a very slippery slope here where instead of the assumption of innocence the entry is doing everything to convict in a situation where no charges were ultimately bought by authorities. I’m not seeing equal weight given to those contradictory statements in evidence and that’s where I see a problem. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A component that has not been mentioned here is that the accuser was married at the time of the alleged assault. Hegseth was not married at the time. A statement from Hegseth's attorney says the allegation is a lie the accuser was "holding onto to keep her marriage intact".[20] —ADavidB 08:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The suggested version leaves out some recent edits. The "false claims of sexual assault" text is not in the given source, whereas "innocent collateral damage" is. A reported "he-said, she-said" description by Hegseth is also not in the above suggested version. —ADavidB 07:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

In general I like User:StAnselm's edits. But after the first sentence I would start the next paragraph with the following: "Hegseth had spoken at an event hosted by the California Federation of Republican Women, which employed the alleged victim. According to reports, Hegseth was behaving "inappropriately" at a bar after the event and a friend had summoned the women to "help ward off" the advances of Hegseth. After encountering Hegseth, the woman said that "things got fuzzy" and, she said, a drug may have been slipped into her drink. She told police she remembered . . ." Remember (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I like StAnselm's version (I don't think the event's host or the accuser's employer are necessary detail, and "he said, she said" is simply redundant to "Hegseth told police that he did have sex with the woman but that it was consensual") but would suggest one change, because ADavidB is right that "false claims of sexual assault" does not appear in the cited source. I'd make that sentence: "Tim Parlatore, a lawyer for Hegseth, later said his client 'felt that he was the victim of blackmail and innocent collateral damage' and paid only because he feared for his career." PRRfan (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and put this version in the article, with the wording suggested by Adavidb and PRRfan. Remember, it looks like you're wanting a longer version than the rest of us, but I think we just need to bite the bullet and put something in the article. StAnselm (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm think the current version does a good job summarizing the event. But I would want to add two points that I think are notable: (1) this occurred at California Federation of Republican Women event where the alleged victim worked; and (2) that the way that the woman encountered Hegseth was being summoned after others complained that he was acting in a creepy way towards them. Other than that, I think everything is basically in the summary. I am happy to defer to consensus on these two points, but those are the two bits of information that I think are notable and useful to add. Remember (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Email from mother

NY Times is reprinted an email from Hegseth mother where she states to her son "You are an abuser of women — that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego . . . You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth." See [21]. The mother now says she apologized for that email and that it was written in anger and that her son is “a good father, husband. [22]. I feel like something from this belongs in the personal section but not sure how best to write it. Brought it to the talk page cause I think this is going to be discussed for awhile. Remember (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It certainly didn't belong with the sexual assault allegation; it seemed rather in the context of his divorce. Personally, I think NYT has sunk to tabloid journalism with this. [[User:StAnselm|St]Anselm (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with that. This email seems to related to another context. I was thinking noting it in the personal section along with the more recent statements by the mom refuting her earlier email. Remember (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

And we couldn't include it without balancing it with the "good father" comment. But of course, we don't generally include testimonials from mothers: "Smith is married with three children. His mother considers him to be a good man." StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

yes. We would have to include her own later rebuttal. As for testimonials, we usually don’t include stuff that is not notable. But given Hegest various positions regarding women, I would think his own mother’s strong accusation about him in writing regarding his treatment of women would be notable. Remember (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in the article. It's widely reported on. Cortador (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Adding it under the personal section with the understanding talked about above. If people have an issue, please bring it here to discuss. Remember (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I did prune it a bit, though. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Remember (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Column on sex with unconscious women

In an effort to get ahead of another issue, someone found that while Hegseth was the publisher of the Tory, there was an article written that implied that sex with an unconscious woman would not constitute rape. See [23]. Not sure how this should or should not be in the article, but again bringing this to the talk page given that there is probably going to be issues about including this information or not in the article. Remember (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Adds to "Sexual assault allegation" section

I've moved two additions by Patar knight here for discussion:

"The alleged assault took place was at a convention for the California Federation of Republic Women for which Hegseth was a speaker and the alleged victim was an organizer for the host organization."

and

"Parlatore also stated that the Monterey County law enforcement officials had declined to charge Hegseth because the alleged victim had previously pursued a false rape charge. In response to a public records request filed by The New Yorker, the Monterey County District Attorney's office said that the claim was false and one for which they had no evidence."

The first passage was under discussion. The second is new and should be discussed before addition. PRRfan (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure the first ever had a consensus around the deletion since I was opposed to its removal and there was never an official vote on the issue. In my mind, we were still discussing it but talking about it here on the talk page to avoid edit warring (and no one actually ever responded to the two issues I wanted to be included in the article that were missing based on the discussion above). Happy to have a vote on the first issue. As far as the second issue, I would vote for inclusion since it appears that his own lawyer is spreading this position to several news organizations as a defense and yet it is unfounded. That seems notable. Remember (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought the first information was relevant, I also read it in a number of reliable sources. Cononsense (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the second addition said "one for which they had no evidence". Who is the "they"? The DA's office, or Parlatore and Hegseth? StAnselm (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is related to the end of the New Yorker article that reads as follows:

In an interview, Tim Parlatore, Hegseth’s lawyer, told me that his client was completely innocent, and that his accuser “was the aggressor” and had “tried to blackmail him.” He also claimed that “sources,” whom he declined to identify, told him there was a shocking reason law-enforcement authorities hadn’t charged Hegseth: their investigation had discovered that his accuser had previously brought a false rape charge against someone else, thus undermining her credibility. Parlatore made the same allegation in the New York Post, which quoted Hegseth demanding that Monterey County law-enforcement officials release their investigative records on the accuser....A few days ago, I filed a public-records request with the Monterey County District Attorney’s office, asking for any information supporting the claim made by Hegseth’s lawyer that his accuser had levied sexual-assault claims against others. The answer came back promptly and definitively. The claim is spurious. The office had no such evidence.

Remember (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It would need to be reworded, but I'm not convinced about the need of either of the proposed additions, to be honest. (I recognize we may not quite have had a consensus to exclude "California Federation of Republic Women" and I was personally careful not to use that word.) StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

About the event's organizer and the alleged victim's employer: Remember is right that no consensus had formed; I've altered my initial edit in this section to reflect that.

As for the additions themselves: a) I don't see why it's necessary to name the organization that hosted the event and employed the alleged victim when we're trying to compress the article's discussion of the incident; and b) I think we shouldn't repeat Hegseth's lawyer's apparent lie, even to debunk it. PRRfan (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Peter "Pete" B. Hegseth" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Peter "Pete" B. Hegseth has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 2 § Peter "Pete" B. Hegseth until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)