Talk:Tim Walz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Victory

The page had been updated to state that he is the incumbent, but still listed CNN's 52-48 projection for Gil Gutknecht so I removed that section. Someone should add something about his win.

Making this article NPOV

I'm not sure if the POV template is a little harsh, but I really think that the biography needs to be re-written in an NPOV way. It really reads like a campaign ad. What do other people think? MicahMN | Talk 19:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The article needs work. Boubelium

I did some minor editing. I think it's fine now. John Broughton 13:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic, not Lutheran

This entry has Mr. Walz's religious affiliation wrong. He's Catholic, it says as much on his campaign website. I'll correct it, if there's no objections. --Wgbc2032 Dec. 14, 11:28 PM (Pacific) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.36.144 (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, I don't quite know how to use the editing tools on this site, but shouldn't the biographical entries on an online encyclopedia be, well, accurate? The section headed Religious affiliation contradicts nndb.com, the National Journal profile of new members of congress, and Mr. Walz's own campaign website. I don't live in Minnesota, and I've never met Mr. Walz, so I don't pretend to have inside information as to his religious convictions, but unless there is some reason to list him as Lutheran I'm going to change it again. 24.119.36.144 (talk)

I added a citation from his campaign website - Catholic it is. If the National Journal disagrees, it is probably wrong. Appraiser 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's conceivable someone could praise the Catholic values they grew up with despite having converted to Lutheranism, but I'd say his site is a pretty authoritative source :) and it says nothing about any later-life conversions. Thanks for documenting this. - PhilipR 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This news release from four days ago [1] states that's he's Lutheran, and a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I'll revise the page, with an edit comment to see the talk page. MisfitToys 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lutherans are claiming him. But these two organizations disagree [2] and [3]. On a website presumably approve by Walz [4], it mentions that he was raised Catholic, but says nothing about now being Lutheran. I would think that if he had converted to Lutheranism, he would have proclaimed that fact in campaign literature, as Lutheranism probably dominates his district. I don't know the real answer, but I'm certainly not convinced based on the Lutheran organization claiming him. Appraiser 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Project Vote Smart, a website which gives issue surveys to candidates, and Mr. Walz religion is listed as Lutheran (Raised Catholic). If I had to venture a guess, his wife is Lutheran and he attends services with her. But as long as he's being listed under both religions, I don't think it matters too much. I don't know if anyone remembers how Rep. Jim Gibbons was for years listed as Protestant even though he's Mormon. Again, so long as it's debatable, it doesn't seem like too big an issue.24.119.36.144 (talk)

Project Vote smart[5] "Biographical Data Collection Process - Every candidate for office is sent a copy of our biographical form when they are sent the National Political Awareness Test. Additional data is collected from the candidate or elected official's website. Please call our Voter's Research Hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762) for more information." Assuming Walz provided the "Lutheran (raised Catholic)", I'll put it just like that on his infobox with this citation. (To future readers: I will revert it to that wording unless a more viable source is cited. And please justify any change here. Thanks.) Appraiser 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Three and a half months after pushing this, I'd like to change Mr. Walz religious affiliation given in the infobox yet again. The 'raised Catholic' in parenthesis just seems like erroneous information. I'm keeping the Project Vote Smart link so that information is still available. --Wgbc2032 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a source that is more reliable than the Project Vote Smart, who claims to have received its information from the candidate? I'll change it back unless someone cites a more reliable source. The article should match the citation. Also, on his campaign website, "his parents instilled him with Catholic values."[6]. That is pretty unambiguous to me. --Appraiser 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I changed the tag to simply Lutheran was because I've felt, ever since we had this debate months ago, that the religion he was raised in didn't need to be included in the infobox. It seemed like information that, while not irrelevent, would be better suited for the article itself than the infobox. For the record I didn't at all question the information in Project Vote Smart's survey, and I kept it there as a source (I'm the one who brought it up in the first place). I wasn't trying to challenge his religious upbringing I just felt it was wrong to place which religion he was raised in in a category generally meant to show which faith a certain politician currently identifies with. That said, this debate (which, again, I'm guilty of starting) ended long ago and maybe I was wrong to try and revive it. Since Mr. Walz religion is reported rather inconsistently, maybe the current tag was a good compromise. I'd prefer it if someone moved this information into the article, but I won't push this any longer. --Wgbc2032 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• My concern is that the information from the cited source matches what we put there. To omit part of his response to PVS seems mis-leading. It would be OK to change it and also change the source, as long as source is deemed reliable.--Appraiser 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Issues section it states that Walz is a teacher and against MERIT-PAY "to punish teachers". This is a very partisan statement. Only the Teachers Union or Oppenents of Merit-Pay consider it a punishment. Those who support it would call it "incentive". The "punishment" portion of this statement should be removed, or else it should say that Walz "considers Merit-Pay punishment for Teachers"; in which case a sitation would be needed. I think some of those who edit this page need to remember that the point of this page isn't to help Walz win re-election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.133.67 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Walz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021110608/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/923881.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tim Walz. 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/20061215214234/http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MMN28992 to http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MMN28992
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213194436/http://www.timwalz.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={9BFE9881-E930-49EA-A44A-7D2E8DF34BDE} to http://www.timwalz.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B9BFE9881-E930-49EA-A44A-7D2E8DF34BDE%7D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108200955/http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/281552131.html to http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/281552131.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/local_story_007001204.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917010807/http://www.opencongress.org:80/states/MN/districts/1 to http://www.opencongress.org/states/MN/districts/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tim Walz. 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/20131021200011/http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/legislation/congressionalinfo/Documents/OAS%20112th%20Congress.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716163828/http://elections.suntimes.com/dynamic/external/pre-election/bios/51531.html?SITE=ILCHSELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT to http://elections.suntimes.com/dynamic/external/pre-election/bios/51531.html?SITE=ILCHSELN&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opencongress.org/states/MN/districts/1

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) 08:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of review for WikiProject Military History

While a significant number of the paragraphs contain citations/references, several paragraphs are still missing citations/references. In addition, there are individual statements within this article which would benefit from the use of inline citations, as well as several sentences which would benefit from editing to improve phrasing and/or flow for readers of the article. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Deployment "In Support of the Global War on Terror"

Walz claims that his deployment to Italy was in support of the Global War on Terror. Italy is considered an OCONUS duty station. Walz does not have any campaign medals, or a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, and therefore his deployment was not in support of the Global War on Terror. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwmnpozx (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tim Walz Governor Portrait.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

As of Nov. 27, 2020 the order of precedence has changed, Mayors of that city are not directly after the Governor of the State — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:448:100:CE40:A436:A085:9AB7:2B58 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Army Service

The military service portion is incorrect. It lists US Army National Guard as the branch.

There are only 5 branches of the military: Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

The Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard have two components: Active and Reserve.

The Army and Air Force have 3 components: Active, Reserve, and National Guard.

The correct description should read, “Branch/Component: US Army, Minnesota Army National Guard.”

Or simply, “US Army.” 2601:442:4680:8390:6CDB:39C3:E3FE:2A76 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How weird, then, that we have an entire article about the Army National Guard, fully sourced, and fully clickable as a link in the very spot you are referencing. Grandpallama (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Check out Beau Biden’s page. That’s how it should look. Brbu002 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Check out Beau Biden’s page. That’s how it should look. Brbu002 (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Billboards

Hello, I feel there should be a ban on billboards in Winona Minnesota and probably the state of Minnesota. They are Very distracting, pretty comparable to looking down on you phone in your car , instead of looking down your looking to the side trying to read the Billboards.it,s pretty much the same thing. There are numerous states that don’t allow Billboards, I’m sure in part of safety to drivers. Now they even have digital ones , so numerous advertising on the one board. Please take the time to read this. I’ve seen numerous people crossing lanes while reading the boards. I feel trying to make our roadways safe for everyone should be a priority. Thank you for your time,Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.204.150 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

His highest rank was first sergeant as he never attended the sergeant major’s course. He retired a first sergeant. 2601:445:180:EC90:89E7:FECB:2F7A:1FF2 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

Change gun policy since it's horribly out of date German2k2k (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

In the section regarding Tim Walz's Position on Gun Rights, he is now more supportive of Gun Control Measures and has signed many pieces of legislation regarding that into law and has advocating for the restriction of Assault Weapons, and the NRA now gives him an F Rating which he has said "doesn't keep me up at night" Sunnyboi18 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote, but I did note that the section was out of date so I've updated it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, he said it in his 2023 Minnesota State of the State Speech, and this is the article from NBC KARE 11 Minneapolis, with it! Gov. Walz delivers annual State of the State Address | kare11.com. Sunnyboi18 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. I'm unfortunately unable to use that as it's blocked in Ireland (where I edit from) and the Wayback Machine excludes it, so I may have to defer this to another user to implement. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The exact quote is, "I know guns as well as anyone else in this room ... I’m not just a veteran, or a hunter, or a gun owner. I’m a dad. And for many years, I was a teacher. I know that there’s no place for weapons of war in our schools, or in our churches, or in our banks, or anywhere else people are just trying to live their lives without fear ... I got an A rating from the NRA my first term in Congress. Now I get straight F’s. And I sleep just fine." So can't really blame the search engine for not finding it. Anyway, I'm closing this request as:

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Xan747 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Rank

Tim Walz retired from the National Guard as a Master Sergeant. He conditionally served as a command sergeant major, but did not retain the rank since he did not complete the Sergeant's Major Academy, nor did he serve as a sergeant major for 24 months. Claims that he is a retired command sergeant major are not accurate. Claims that he is the highest ranking enlisted soldier to serve in Congress are factually not true, and self serving. Senator John Tower retired as a Master Chief Petty Officer (E9), and Tim Walz retired as a Master Sergeant (E8).

I agree the NGB22 and 23 form has the final say on the individuals rank. This format is not used for other notable figures who have been demoted like Bowe Bergdahl or other demoted Generals. Until it can be substantiated that he held the rank by showing he attended relevant PME and held the MOS 00Z,then he never actually held the rank.JamboJuice (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bergdahl was court-martialed and demoted to the lowest enlisted rank along with being sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, the result of a punitive measure. Walz was conditionally promoted to sergeant major, then returned to master sergeant when he didn't complete his PME as an administrative rule. Likening the latter to the former is disingenuous; Walz was never punitively demoted. Walz held the sergeant major rank from the time he was promoted to the time he was returned back to master sergeant. It is incorrect to assert he "never held the rank" on the grounds that he never ended up going to the sergeant major PME course; he held the rank the day the promotion order was issued, conditional or not. He then held the rank of master sergeant again down the road after he didn't complete his PME. Accordingly, the highest rank he attained was sergeant major. There is nothing misleading or inappropriate with informing readers that the highest rank he attained was sergeant major, especially since the expanded details are included in the first section of the article body. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you can provide his promotion papers since he held that rank. Otherwise we had master Sargents be acting first Sargents all the time. Doesn't mean they ever achieved that ran nor would it show on a dd214 or there be promotion orders 2600:6C46:4F7F:DC8F:10F7:149:40D3:15C0 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's delusional, Berghdal was demoted for not meeting the standards of military service. Walz was demoted for not meeting the standards of not only his PME but not fufilling the terms of his contract and not holding the required billet/MOS 00Z. Both are adverse and punitive for failing to meet Army Regulations and Requirements, there is no such thing as a non-punitive demotion. You cannot have a reversion in rank unless there was an adverse action that precipitated it. All regulations regarding demotions come from the same Army Manual AR 600-8-19. You need to cite your source in there that proves that. Otherwise you're making things up.

He failed the requirements during the process known as frocking, it's a very deliberate decision to allow people to wear the rank until they are properly qualified and a vacancy is open in that MOS billet. However your frocking period does not count as time held in rank or count towards retirement nor is it recorded in his official records that he had authority to hold that grade. Therefore it's perfectly okay to say he never held it because HE NEVER OFFICIALLY HELD TIME IN RANK NOR THE AUTHORITY, This is reflected in the NGB 22 and 23A, it is not not noted there, therefore it is not official. He only wore the insignia.

  Because he never completed PME, he was never assigned a billet, because he never held a billet, he never left his frocking period. Not recognizing this key difference in frocked promotions and official promotions IS MISLEADING AND DISINGENIOUS.

I also remind you that there is a wikipedia article that covers this very process and my edits and talk have been consumerate with the information contained therein. You should familiarize yourself with military customs and regulations. Before you make unnecessary reversions as noted in the Wikipedia:BOLD JamboJuice (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

Tim walz never served in operation enduring freedom

Also never officially obtained the rank of Command Sargent major, so could never be reduced in rank because he was a temporary appointment to the command position.

[redacted BLP violation and link to unreliable and copyrighted source] Kablammo (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Also see the final sentence of the article that you left out: This is a paid endorsement letter to the editor.

Finally, your extended copy-paste of the source is likely a copyright violation. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

If you were canvassed to come to this page

If you have received or seen a request on a talk page to edit this article, please note that there has been frequent recent occurrences of a blocked sockfarm visiting talk pages to try and get other editors to edit this page for them. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

Change the photo to this more recent one from 2024 that is also better quality:

166.199.100.28 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect hyperlink for his opponent in the 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, District 1

Hi all, it seems that the hyperlink for Brian J. Davis (Mr Walz's 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, District 1 opponent) links to the wrong Brian J. Davis (a former judge from Florida). I would fix it myself, but I do not have a Wikipedia account and there is extended protection on this page. 2602:306:249F:A5C9:647A:DF5C:2CCE:297B (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for letting us know. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Minor typo

Career > Teaching career states "where he met is wife Gwen Whipple"

Should be his wife Dmeyferth21 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. It is fixed. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (3)

Insert hyperlink at first mention of DFL to point to existing article of Minnesota_Democratic–Farmer–Labor_Party BrianDavidson (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vrrajkum (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (6)

The personal life section appears twice with the same content but slightly different wording. Should merge them. Edit: it was corrected :)KisaraBlue (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (7)

Change: The law also added granted construction workers stronger protections against wage theft.

To: The law also granted construction workers stronger protections against wage theft. Dawnvawn (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (2)

Third paragraph, second-to-last sentence, replace "was" with "is" (Walz was a running mate candidate for Kamala Harris in her 2024 presidential campaign, making the reported shortlist and becoming a finalist.). 2001:5A8:6A0:3600:7C05:CCFD:8CB6:5BA7 (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Vice President nominee

Tim Walz was just chosen to be Kamala Harris's Vice Presidential running mate. August 6, 2024 PNWGlinda (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would remove it. It's not offical yet, just rumors. Besides she will make the announcement in just a few hours so... Leikstjórinn (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Now the story is confirmed 🙂 2601:248:301:D110:342D:DD83:41B9:4BB2 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (4)

Our current voice makes it seem as if the campaign has officially announced that he's the nominee, which is not the case. It's solely based on sources given to the news, which while reputable, is not the same thing as the campaign announcing it. Until there is an official announcement, the sentence: "On August 6, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris announced her selection of Walz as her running mate in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." should be changed to something along the lines of "On August 6, 2024, it was reported that Vice President Kamala Harris has selected Walz as her running mate in the 2024 U.S. presidential election." AG202 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Vrrajkum (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a formal announcement, but Walz is now mentionned (and implied to be the running mate) on the Harris campaign website (https://kamalaharris.com/). 2001:6A8:3081:4F01:D53:92C1:B817:770F (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And now it has been confirmed on Twitter (https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1820828396298879294). 2001:6A8:3081:4F01:D53:92C1:B817:770F (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

It’s WAIVER not WAVER 2600:1700:DFB0:90E0:A9B2:96B6:3DC9:8674 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct and  Done with a wikilink. Zefr (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris Picks Walz

CNN has it - probably better to wait for an official announcement from the campaign, but if I could, I'd have the edit typed out, just waiting to hit publish. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also reported by Reuters and AP. CallMeSarge (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert, it’s Kamala Harris. I’m pleased to share that I’ve made my decision: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz will join our campaign as my running mate.

Tim is a battle-tested leader who has an incredible track record of getting things done for Minnesota families. I know that he will bring that same principled leadership to our campaign, and to the office of the vice president.

Now, would you pitch in $20 to welcome Tim to our ticket? We are relying on your immediate support to defeat Donald Trump and JD Vance.

https://m.kamalaharris.com/jlB6Gsi0

It means the world to me, to Tim, and to our families to have you in our corner.

– Kamala

Stop2Quit 192.81.106.218 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Police reform update

From the Intercept Iskandar323 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Ultimately he and Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro were the two remaining contenders.[8] 2604:2D80:DA02:D900:EA74:6BA1:508D:23B6 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Ultimately" is not appropriate here. Tvoz/talk 01:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

update reference #82

Hi! I just tried to open reference #82 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22428&can_id=65443) however the link does not work anymore. The archive link (https://web.archive.org/web/20211203112856/https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bills) does not clearly mention the cited position either. I think it would be a good idea to update the links to these claims (e.g "[...] and tried to block the Obama-era bailout of banks and car companies after the 2008 financial crash") Gamerik (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

this seems like a good source too: https://www.startribune.com/tim-walz-why-i-voted-against-the-bailout-bill/30540069 (archive) Gamerik (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz as presumptive nominee?

Posted the same thing in the talk page for the 2024 presidential election page; Walz is listed here as the presumptive nominee, but on the 2024 election page he’s not given the presumptive tag. Consistency between pages would be nice. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

He's still presumptive until he is formally nominated by the Democratic National Committee. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"As in fraud"

Do we really want to be telling people to pronounce his name "as in fraud"? StAnselm (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Auto-generated by Wikipedia's IPA coding; at any rate, it's unlikely that most people will actually hover over the IPA pronunciation when "walls" is clarified right next to it. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Summary box

Ranking member doesn’t go above being a member of congress in the summary box. It should be put below or somewhere else. See Tim Scott and Marco Rubio. 107.122.93.125 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Both of the examples you gave show committee memberships listed above status in Congress; Scott and Rubio's committee memberships are just collapsible because they have multiple (whereas Walz only has one). Vrrajkum (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum Your point about collapsing is correct. Thanks. Given that shouldn’t service in congress take precedent and his short tenure as ranking member be put below his 13 years service in congress (as it is more notable). Thanks 107.122.93.125 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox voice box

Hello! I've just uploaded a bunch of voice clips from Walz from when he was in Congress to use to potentially replace the voice box we have on the page now. If this is something anyone would like to do, feel free to take a look and pick your favorite. Cheers! Y2hyaXM (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

In 1995, he was arrested for a driving under the influence charge, REMOVE COMMA HERE and has been a teetotaler ever since Monkeywire (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Usage of the serial comma varies among writers and editors and also varies among the regional varieties of English." Presumably Monkeywire is one of those who don't use it, like me. Either is fine, but the article should probably try to be consistent on this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't use it either. I haven't checked the article for which of the two is used the most. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a serial comma and the sentence has been slightly rewritten. Should be a non-issue. Rutsq (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Main page update/First Term discussion in lede

The section on the page main describing his first term as governor is far too critical. Should present a more balanced view. IronicUsername44 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guest2625 - Sorry, didn't mean to revert you there in my most recent edit, I think we published at the same time. Only meant to delete a sentence in the beginning.

In any case, I disagree with you @Tartaral and @IronicUsername44 about this. These are important, overarching facts related to his first term that are well-sourced and should be mentioned in the beginning. Happy to hear your thoughts as to why it shouldn't. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Overarching" and "overshadowed" is a matter of opinion and perspective. These are indeed events that are occurring in parallel with his governorship. Are these the only events? Are these truly and inexorably tied to his governorship in its entirety? Did they occur over the entire duration of his first term? Were there other events, achievements, accomplishments?

Because whether something is "overshadowed" is probably best defined by the relationship between these events and the plurality of that viewpoint, combined with the impact of other events, achievements, and accomplishments.

The source that you provided even says "some criticized." That does not lend well to being "overshadowed by failure." Who's doing the criticizing? What's the percentage?

According to this source Major General Jon Jensen testified to Congress, and said that the response was expeditious, and that "putting soldiers on the streets takes time. First, they have to be called up to their local armories and then are given orders and supplies before moving out. And, Jensen said, not all Guard members have the same skills."

The phrase "criticism for a failure" also implies that a failure has indeed occurred, and that failure is being criticized. But if Major General Jon Jensen's testimony has weight, then your wording is insertion of conclusiveness at worst and nebulous at best. It can certainly be improved if you feel it is merely nebulous.

For example, "During X, this major event Y occurred, and some felt that Z." It's the same for the second one, where "failure to rein in" is written. I'd have to check the source, but this has the same issue. If these are third-party individuals of a less-than-overwhelming view, then what's doing the overshadowing, and what's defining the failure? Is it even objectively true? In other words, you can split these into two issues: 1 - Language that implicitly suggests it is overshadowing when the sources do not suggest it and 2 - Language that implicitly suggests that it is indeed a failure to begin with.)

You wrote here it is "overarching," which is just another synonym for "overshadowing," without a metric by which that makes sense. But also, mostly because your source doesn't align with it very well, and it feels like colourful addenda absent additional sources. TheAnathema (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Properly pinging @Tataral - misspelled your username, sorry! — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not critical. It's balanced and sourced. We don't have to write about him in a positive way. That's not how wikipedia works 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Making his first term only about criticism over two controversies is not really balanced. Even Trump gets a more balanced portrayal of his first term (i.e. not only criticism). I also think it's undue. The fraud case doesn't involve him personally, it's something that a company that happened to be based in his state was involved with, it doesn't belong in the lead section of Walz' biography. I also don't think the summary regarding the Floyd protests is a fair summary of his role or due in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not only about criticism. The article actually praises him for his "legislative success" and "progressive (aka far-left) policies". Bad aspects of his governorship must be included too, moreover if they are sourced 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Progressive" isn't "far-left" in any global context, or even in Overton window-skewed American domestic politics. Save far-left for Maoists. Talkpages aren't Internet political fora. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Right now, you're the one, using this talk page as a forum 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then stop using casual political forum chat terms and propose actionable changes based on reliable sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the content, that I would like to add was already added and sourced, but then deleted for unknown reasons and there is a discussion here, whether we should reinstant that content or not. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And whether progressive policies are far-left or not is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not advocating for calling walz "far-left" in this article, just to make it clear 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to make this point also, thank you for bringing it up. I included both successes and failures for a reason.

It makes no sense to include only legislative successes in his second term, but fail to mention the criticisms associated with the first. That would be a balanced portrayal. It is clear that removing only the negativities paints an idealistic picture of someone who didn't have an unblemished track record as governor. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I also noted that the description of his tenure starts with his second term, which doesn't make any sense. His first term was overshadowed with the fraud scandal and his slow reaction on Floyd riots and we should write about it62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't even reduce Trump's first term to "Trump's term was overshadowed by his attempted coup". --Tataral (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Bringing trump to this article is irrelevant. And by the way, January 6 IS mentioned in his article. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though the crux of the issue is that the sources say that some people have a criticism of these events, and these sources are specific to those events. The people the source references: State Senator Warren Limmer. Another point is that, at least for the first event, the director of the National Guard testified to a Senate committee saying that the response was expeditious and listed reasons why it wouldn't be as quickly as some people would expect.

To go beyond the sources to say that these "overshadow" his entire term, and define it as a failure, despite the director of the National Guard saying otherwise, seems problematic. Whose POV is this? Senator Limmer's? Can this all be written better?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. TheAnathema (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing one vague sentence in the body of the article about "political opponents and other groups" criticizing Walz's response to the protests. There could possibly be value to saying something in the lead about the protests happening during Walz's first term. But adding content to the lead about political opponents criticizing Walz's response to the protests seems like it would cause problems with both NPOV and UNDUE. --Jpcase (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And only keeping in language about his successes isn't UNDUE?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't use the term "legislative successes". It should just describe the legislation that he signed without editorializing about whether those policies were good or bad. --Jpcase (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have now edited it to say "Walz has passed legislation" instead of "legislative successes" - that sentence could use more work, but the right language isn't coming to mind right now. In any case, I think a non-editorialized version of his first term criticisms could still be included to obey WP:NPOV. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DUI Arrest

Isn’t it a bit odd that this page doesn’t mention his 1996 arrest for drunk driving? 2600:1700:8659:4300:A4C6:DF2F:7BC1:3E13 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim Walz#Early life and education Vrrajkum (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see it’s been added, although it’s odd that it’s in the “Early Life And Education” section, since he was 31 years old and well out of school.

Typically, a public figure’s criminal history goes under “Personal Life,” rather than sandwiched in a paragraph between unrelated material.

But at least it’s there somewhere now. 2600:1700:8659:4300:A4C6:DF2F:7BC1:3E13 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Better coverage would be appreciated, if only so that no one uses a phrase like "criminal history" for the single count of reckless driving he pleaded to. Rutsq (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Spot On. More needs to be stated than the use of poor criminal jargon.. AntiqueMe2 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (5)

Remove the respelling and add a pronunciation guide in line with MOS:PRON. The IPA given is identical to that of the English word 'walls', so there is no need for a respelling that won't be as helpful to anyone who is not linguistically-inclined. Just simply note that his surname is pronounced like the existing English word. 85sl (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give a concrete example of what you're envisioning? Vrrajkum (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It could read Timothy James Walz (/wɔːlz/ "walls"; born April 6, 1964)

or Timothy James Walz (/wɔːlz/, pronounced "walls"; born April 6, 1964)

Both styles are listed under MOS:RESPELL 85sl (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "ɔ" represents the vowel with which most Americans pronounce "walls" (or the vowel that the governor uses in saying his name); I believe "ɔ" represents the vowel in "holes". I believe the correct glyph is "ɑː"; "wɑːlz". 2600:1700:1900:8A70:D132:ACFF:E1CB:5031 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The 'holes' vowel is /oʊ/. /ɔ/ exists in some American dialects, but many merge it into /ɑː/. See Cot–caught merger; most Americans will pronounce his name as [wɑːlz] because that is the representation of the phoneme /ɔ/ in their dialect. Since 'walls' is /wɔːlz/ in every American dialect, just like Walz's surname, the pronunciation guide is correct. I request that someone restore the pronunciation guide version. 85sl (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought /oʊ/ was the vowel in "hoax". 2600:1700:1900:8A70:D132:ACFF:E1CB:5031 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but the /ɔ/ vowel is not the same. In the dialects where it is present, it is the vowel in the word "cot." Most Americans pronounce it exactly like the vowel in "caught." The /oʊ/ vowel is completely separate. 85sl (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-marking this edit request as unanswered, as it has still not been fixed. 85sl (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Marked this closed for two reasons:

* This is an archive page - new requests go on the main talk page.

* This is clearly not an uncontroversial request, and therefore requires the establishment of a consensus BEFORE using the "Edit Semi-Protected" template. PianoDan (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding his German-American heritage

According to several sources and his own social media, Tim Walz is of German-American heritage. I believe this information should be added. I am referring to this: https://www.distractify.com/p/tim-walz-parents Guelph8 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with that source, see entry at WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Typo in table

Under electoral history, the 2006 table has a typo. The given percentages sum to 100.8%. If you go through to the source page, it lists Walz share as 52.7% rather than the 53.7% shown on this page. Lmdemasi (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Teaching ... Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota

Edit ...

Early career, Teaching ... Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota

"After high school, Tim held a series of odd jobs ranging from building grain silos to manufacturing to mortgage loan processing as he explored America. He accepted a temporary teaching position at the Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota. It was this experience that convinced Tim to follow his father’s lead and become a teacher."

https://krocnews.com/meet-mn-governor-and-lt-governor-candidates-tim-walz-and-peggy-flanagan/ 76.156.161.247 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Appointment to Third Committee as a Freshman Congressman

In the US House of Representatives Section

I have two other sources for Nancy Pelosi waiving the rule allowing only two committee assignments to Freshman Representatives.

Fischenich, M. (2007, January 18). Walz joins veterans committee. Mankato Free Press. https://www.mankatofreepress.com/news/local_news/walz-joins-veterans-committee/article_a1b045c1-3865-5516-af87-74d5619a938b.html

Committee limit waived, Walz appointed to veterans panel - Post Bulletin | Rochester Minnesota news, weather, sports. (2013, January 9). Rochester Post Bulletin. https://www.postbulletin.com/news/committee-limit-waived-walz-appointed-to-veterans-panel

This topic cis currently marked as "non-primary source needed" thaddeusmaximus (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Birthday Question for Tim Walz.

Both of the April 1964 newspapers for the area say James Walz's son was born on 5 April. Can we verify the birth certicate? I will post links to the papers. BarlowIrick (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=walz&t=39592&i=t&d=04011964-05012023&m=between&ord=k1&fn=west_point_republican_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=6&cid=2989 BarlowIrick (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=walz&t=39589&i=t&by=1964&bdd=1960&d=01011964-12311964&m=between&ord=k1&fn=cuming_county_democrat_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=2&cid=2989 BarlowIrick (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the name Walz is highlighted in the first of the 2 links above, it's impossible to see the date in question. This modified link allows it to be seen, at the very bottom of the center column:

https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?t=39592&i=t&d=04011964-05012023&m=between&ord=k1&fn=west_point_republican_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=6&cid=2989

Rutsq (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Governor photo

This appears to be Tim Walz's official gubernatorial portrait: https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-kit/ https://mn.gov/governor/about-gov/timwalz/
Could anyone find its license to see if it's usable here please? GhulamIslam (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (7)

Gov. Tim Waltz was demored and retired as a Master Sergeant not a Command Sergeant Major please correct main page. 2600:6C56:4800:987:7DA9:F476:677E:D37C (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See threads above – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (8)

Edit rank for military service from Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant

71.86.90.109 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See threads above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Fuller List of Gubernatorial Accomplishments

I would like to request the following additions to Walz's accomplishments in the "Governor of Minnesota" section:

- The nation's leading child tax credit (cutting childhood poverty by one-third), tax rebates of up to $1,300 for middle-class and working-class families, and tax exemptions for Social Security and student loan forgiveness, paying for these and other investments by closing tax deductions used by the wealthy and big corporations [7].

- Free college for all students with household incomes under $80,000 [8].

- Set the stage for implementing a health care public option to compete with private insurance [9].

- A $1 billion investment in affordable housing, along with landmark tenants' rights protections [10].

- A state board to set minimum workplace standards for the nursing home sector [11].

- In addition to the noncompete clause ban, a ban on captive anti-union meetings and cutting-edge protections for Amazon and meatpacking plant workers [12].

- Banning health care providers from refusing to treat patients with medical debt [13].

There are even more accomplishments, and hopefully they are added here over time. I would also like to request clarification of the following:

- The "paid leave" specifically covers 12 weeks of paid family leave, 12 weeks of paid medical leave, or a combined total of 20 weeks, making it one of the leading paid leave programs in the country [14].

- After initially vetoing a bill to increased pay for rideshare drivers (since Uber and Lyft were threatening to leave the state), Walz eventually came to a compromise to increase the pay [15].

It is also worth adding that before the 2023 legislative session, Walz passed a breakthrough insulin affordability bill even with a Republican-controlled State Senate [16]. 174.165.76.74 (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Butter Carving

is butter carving his hobby? This is essential information. 184.88.114.180 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Vanity Fair says yes.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Once or twice trying butter carving at the State Fair as a politician does not constitute a genuine hobby. If anyone wants to say that editing Wikipedia is my hobby, I will plead guilty as charged because I have edited Wikipedia most days for 15 years. There would need to be far better evidence to call butter carving a genuine Walz hobby, rather than the thin and tattered evidence presented thusfar. Does he regularly fill his grocery cart with many pounds of butter to repeatedly practice sophisticated butter carving innovations? Evidence, please. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox note

There is a "note" in the infobox rank= parameter which does not appear in /doc of the infox's template page. Was there ever a consensus to specify that parameter should use only the highest rank, leading to the placement of such a "note". I've looked and can't find the consensus. There are now several reliable sources supporting he retired at a lower rank. Even the body of the article mentions it. So who put that note into the template, and where is the consensus discussion? — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have also tried to find said consensus and there seems to be none.

I posted earlier about many RS covering this issue with even CBS calling it a controversy. Others call it the stolen valor accusations.

Some of the many RS' for reference: Newsweek - CBS - WaPo

I hope this can be fixed.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of the disagreement turns on Walz's rank at the moment of his retirement.

- In a strict, literal sense, the moment Walz retired, he was a CSM. He had been promoted and had held that rank.

- He choose to run for Congress. As he had served 24 years, nothing could stop him from turning in his papers. Every member of the military has that option after they hit retirement.

- When he retired, he had outstanding training requirements for CSM. By not completing them, his provisional promotion was revoked.

In one camp, there are people who agree that when Walz retired he was a CSM. The provisional promotion and subsequent recission does not matter to this crowd.

In another camp, that Walz doesn't volunteer constitutes "stolen valor."

Stolen valor refers to embellishments of service, the displaying of medals one didn't earn, or outright lying about one's military service. Between the statements of the National Guard not dismissing nor countering Walz's statement that he retired as a CSM, and Army Manual AR 600 – 8 – 19, section 1-35 a(14) clearly states that a provisional promotion that is not completed is simply rescinded and not a military-style demotion.

Walz was promoted to CSM. Provisional or not, it is a rank he earned.

To date, there are no medals or duty stations he reports to have earned or served at that are inconsistent with his record.

The closest Walz comes to "stolen valor" is his statement about carrying a weapon of war. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Walz was talking rhetorically or not.

I don't believe the stolen valor complaint carries water, nor is it in good faith. The argument in its favor - in the best possible light - is strained. The average person does not care the retirement benefits of a SGM vs a CSM. The "bark" of people promoting stolen valor is at best exaggerated. The argument doesn't draw the clear-cut falsehood that a charge of stolen valor requires. It would be easier, and not up for debate, if Walz outright lied about being a CSM when he wasn't - except that's not true.

Sometimes there aren't two sides of a story. This "stolen valor" nonsense reeks of manufactured controversy. Walz's detractors need something they can freely criticize him on, and they're crying crocodile tears until they get their way.

I appreciate the need for consensus, but sometimes there isn't two sides of a story. Just as there is no need to fact-check the sun rising in the east, the aforementioned Army manual and statements kill the complaint where it stands. SinkingFeeling (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I read you and want to commend you for striving to be neutral and having done extensive and relevant research. But if I have learned something from the near-gatekeeping level of strictness that long-time WP editors display in these "protected" articles is that Wikipedia:No original research stands and we should only care what RS report.

As such, many RS are reporting this as a controversy. We shouldn't editorialize and just report it as is. After all, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is not opinion.

My $0.02.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

CSM and SGM are both the same pay grade, E-9. The major difference is that the Command Sergeant Major (CSM) has much broader and wider responsibility than the Sergeant Major (SGM). EMDG332 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any consensus, but the precedent from the "military person" infobox is that rank is "the highest rank achieved by the person". StuartH (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

was deployed overseas.

He never went overseas. 69.118.205.57 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Not long after, Walz was off to basic training in Georgia. It was the first stop in a military career that would take him to Arkansas, Texas, the Arctic Circle and several outposts in between. "You go where you're told to go." ... They spent time stationed together in the far reaches of Norway, where Guard troops trained with NATO allies, doing drills in the snow in 30-below-zero temperatures. ... Bonnifield said they also bonded during a deployment to Italy connected to post-Sept. 11 Operation Enduring Freedom." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that a military "deployment" does not necessarily mean to a combat zone. When a navy ship crosses the Atlantic from Virginia to Spain, that's a deployment. Walz's unit was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. That deployment brought them to Italy, which obviously isn't a war zone, but he was deployed in support of the war (Operation Enduring Freedom).ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Political positions

I think the sections on Abortion/Reproductive rights & Cannabis should be moved to the Political positions section.

Currently, this is buried under the Tenure sub-heading, here: Tim Walz#Governor of Minnesota (2019–present)

Would be much easier to find if it was all included under the Political positions section instead, making it easier and more clear for the casual reader to jump quickly to this part of the article, and get a quick take on where he stands on the issues.

Thank you for considering this request. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it needs to be in both places, with relevant legislation that he signed in the Tenure section and non-legislative content (e.g., quotes) under Political positions. I've made that split for abortion-related contents. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Also see the discussion at "Political positions" should be merged into other sections FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on deployment …

The sentence, "During his service, he worked in disaster response postings following floods and tornadoes and was deployed overseas," should be changed to "During his service, he worked in disaster response postings following floods and tornadoes and was deployed overseas, but did not see combat," because the source [26] states "Walz acknowledges he never saw combat."

This is important because that same source says, "During that race [Walz's first for congress], Walz's service was a prominent feature, and also a source of a late-campaign dispute.

"Tom Hagen, a military reservist from Waseca, Minn., who served in Iraq, wrote a letter to a newspaper in the district saying that Walz wasn't being entirely candid about his record 'through artful omission' about where his overseas missions took him. Hagen said voters deserved to know Walz didn't deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan."

In <https://x.com/kamalahq/status/1820918063966962143>, Walz says, in part, "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war … ." By his own admission, he was never "in war."

So for full disclosure, in the face of him continuing to make statements like the immediately above, the sentence should be edited to allow readers to know that he did not actually see war. Paulshikleejr (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says He did not deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, or a combat zone during his service. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is an episode on CSPAN with him saying he was a 24 year veteran and he said he was deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom going around, but only conservative sites that are banned here seem to be linking to the video, can someone else find a liberal one that is ok with wikipedia editors to link with? 2603:8080:3EF0:7280:6807:8B1F:7DB5:1060 (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr

Would this be Soapbox then?

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am trying to learn why my TP post was the only one targeted. 68.188.156.135 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

He is a 24 year veteran and he was deployed during OEF/OIF. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please specify where that is in the article. I don't see it. Paulshikleejr (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Please specify where that is in the article. I don't see it. Paulshikleejr (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That sentence was in the military section. It looks to have been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Served in Korean War?

Korean war was over in 1953 he wasn't born until 1964. 161.199.178.153 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The article states that Walz's father served in the Korean War, not Walz himself. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

US Military Service

Walz was not a ComSgtMaj! He never completed testing! 67.71.90.32 (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

See above. He was until he retired, when he reverted to his former rank. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

And see the comment above concerning the three years in grade rule for retirement. Acroterion (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out 1) how this is a neutral statement "Although Walz has been criticized for the timing of his retirement, a colleague said that at the time they had not been notified that they were going to be deployed." and 2) why suddenly this entire page seems to have become making excuses and defending his short comings? Honest question. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:54D5:C5CE:CF58:51F6 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024 (2)

The article on Tim Walz states that he was in the Korean War. The Korean war was from 1950-1953, but Tim Walz was born in 1964 and so could not have participated. 2600:1700:27B7:2000:1908:AE40:F71A:FB2E (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The article states that Walz's father, not Tim Walz himself, served in the Korean War. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024

He was a Master Sergeant not a Command sergeant major Wright80 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is correct by many sources, such as this by NPR, and well-discussed above.

Quote: "By the time Walz left the military, he achieved the rank of command sergeant major, one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. Personnel file records show that he was reduced in rank months after retiring, leaving him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes." Zefr (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

New source, BBC: A national guard spokesperson told the BBC that “his rank reverted to master sergeant on May 15th, 2005, for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the US Army Sergeants Major Academy. He retired the following day.” starship.paint (RUN) 04:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Vote for continued funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan removed

On 00:03, 7 August 2024‎, user @Superb Owl removed the following:

He also voted to continue funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The stated reason was just "fixing further issues". It seems relevant to me, so I wonder why it was removed. 2001:4643:1480:0:79A9:A56F:D7D2:1D2E (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed a number of items that lacked a reliable secondary source to establish notability. Superb Owl (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that Vote Smart is an unreliable source for vote counts? The relevant page is here: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/20208

But here is a primary source: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2008431

Here is another primary source including the relevant discussion in Congress on this amendment: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CREC-2008-05-19/CREC-2008-05-19-pt1-PgE963/context

Regarding notability, there is now also this: https://www.aol.com/news/tim-walz-against-unaccountable-wars-171452007.html?guccounter=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:1480:0:A4DC:DB2C:93DD:DBC6 (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Paging @Superb Owl since the above editor made great points. It seems proper to add it back, else we run the risk of violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that if the bar was simply its inclusion in databases like VoteSmart, this article would turn into a database and not a summary of the most notable votes cast.
Here is the original article in Reason: https://reason.com/2024/08/06/tim-walz-is-against-unaccountable-wars-but-he-voted-to-fund-them-anyways/ (always best to use the original). I would now feel comfortable including it since Reason is a reliable source but if the page gets too big, I could see it getting taken out again without more sources discussing the vote Superb Owl (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hatch Act and National Guard Retirement

Text in entry: "Walz retired from military service in May 2005; he later explained that he wanted to focus on his campaign for Congress and did not want to violate the Hatch Act, which forbids some political activities by federal government employees." Governor Walz may have claimed that but there is nothing in the Hatch Act that prevents a Guard soldier from running for Congress. The evidence is, for example, Max Rose, Tulsi Gabbard, Steve Stivers. Why can't we be honest about this and just say he wanted to campaign for Congress instead of deploying to Iraq. 2600:8800:4702:B900:F830:EC2C:C516:2EC5 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hatch does prevent services members from promoting a political campaign or candidate, or asking for donations via platforms on which they have been prominently identified as a service member. For what it's worth, at least Tulsi Gabbard pretty flagrantly violated Hatch, maybe most strikingly when she posted online while not only prominently associated with the armed services, but wearing her uniform and rank.

Don't fault someone for being too cautiously ethical about real or perceived conflicts of interest or the status of the armed forces as an apolitical body. GMG^talk 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Being deployed would make him active duty, and although someone on active duty can be a candidate, they cannot campaign or fundraise, which places severe restrictions on their efforts to be elected. See, for example, sections 4.1.2 and 4.3.3 of this DOD doc and this discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

change heading Women's issues to Abortion?

A quick look at other politicians' pages shows that abortion support is often listed under the heading "Abortion" rather than "Women's issues" (e.g. Lucas Kunce#Abortion, Terri Sewell, Jon Ossoff#Abortion, Richard Ojeda#Abortion, Jack Reed (Rhode Island politician)#Abortion )

It's not clear that abortion rights are a women's issue.

Please consider changing the heading from "Women's issues" to "Abortion." Thanks! Kristi Wachter (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear that abortion rights are a women's issue? What do you mean by this? 72.14.126.22 (talk)! — Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe what they mean is that the phrase "women's issues" is a bit vague while "abortion" is more clear about what the specific issue is. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear! I meant abortion rights are not ONLY a women's issue. I found the heading slightly jarring for that reason (I would expect abortion positions to be listed under "Abortion" or "Reproductive rights"), which led me to check other politicians' pages, where I found that they mostly use "Abortion" as the heading. I agree with Di that "Abortion" is clearer. It's also more consistent with what Wikipedia seems to do on other similar pages. Thank you for asking! Kristi Wachter (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that it's been changed to "Abortion," but it might make sense to change it to "Reproductive health care" or "Reproductive rights," since he's also signed legislation protecting access to contraception and fertility treatments. Depends on whether it's important for the heading to parallel that used on other politicians' pages. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I made the change to "Reproductive Rights" as that seems to be a more accurate description of what is covered in the section. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it's currently "Abortion and reproductive rights." That seems much clearer and similar to headings on other pages. Thank you all for responding to this suggestion. Kristi Wachter (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be returned to "women's issues" because the tampons need to be included.[17][18][19] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim Walz put free tampons in the schools. He did not put tampons in the boys bathrooms. This is a ridiculous lie pushed by either dumb Republicans or Republicans trying to be funny. Their justification for this lie is it wasn't specified in the law where exactly the tampons will be placed. The obvious answer is the women's restroom and the nurse's office. The Republicans like to believe spme of the boys having transgender surgery might miraculously start menstruating and need a tampon. If a boy has become that much like a girl they are going to prefer to use the little girls room anyways where they can get all the tampons they need. 108.190.149.87 (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am having a hard time believing that your comment isn't satire, or that you could possibly be so unintelligent. Radical leftists are so unhinged. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:DDB6:ABCA:D026:BA43 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he did put free tampons in the boys room. Trying to deflect by saying he put them in girls rooms too, or just saying restrooms is more radical leftist misdirection. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:DDB6:ABCA:D026:BA43 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps contributors to this discussion could try citing sources instead of asserting their own beliefs and namecalling. By way of a contribution, I offer the Star Tribune editorial found HERE. Consider these excerpts:

Providing free menstrual products is a practical, compassionate remedy to address an under-the-radar reason for student absenteeism. Some families can’t afford menstrual products, and when that happens students stay home instead of going to class, falling behind as they do.

But the law’s actual language provides considerable flexibility for school districts to implement it, according to Deb Henton, the executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.

That might mean making these products available for free in various locations for all who need them, such as unisex bathrooms, girls’ bathrooms, the school nurse or the front office, but not necessarily in boys’ bathrooms. Henton, in an interview, lauded the “local control” the law provides for implementation, and said she’s fielded no concerns about its rollout.

At Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest school district, the free products are not found in traditional male-only bathrooms, a spokesman said. But they are provided for free to all in “nongendered bathrooms,” girls’ bathrooms or from health staffers.

Note as well than a majority of US states have tampon-availability statutes. Rutsq (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Military service

Seems to be a lot of back-and-forth with bad-faith IPs; closing for length reasons and remember DFTT Dronebogus (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

never achieved rank of command Sergeant major and retired to avoid deployment to Irac with his unit also never saw active combat of any kind during his career2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC) The country is spelled Iraq in English. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He didn't retire to avoid deployment. See CNN's discussion of this. The rank issue is already addressed in the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Established Fact that he was never a command sergeant major also. There have been countless instances relating to CNN publishing incorrect articles exagerated mis information and outright deception for these reasons I think the people he served with are a more reliable source than CNN. Using his own words referring to himself as a combat veteran and carried a gun in war is outright deception to portray himself as something he isnt. 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC) When, in "his own words", did he say he saw combat? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He used the word war. 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He said "in war", not "in combat", and you changed the post that I replied to from "combat" to "war". He was deployed overseas during OEF/OIF, which is war. We've gone over this on Pete Buttigieg's article. I see Republicans are trying to Swift Boat Walz now. We won't play along. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC) speech while running for governor of Minnisota he referred to himself as a combat veteran he has never seen combat or war for that matter his deployments have never taken him to within the same country borders where a war was taking place. He was in Europe in a support capacity and he should say that instead of implying he is something he is not. Also the fact that he retired when actually scheduled for the possibility of an actual "combat" deployment I think speaks volumes 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Once again, show me where he referred to himself as a "combat veteran". He never said he saw combat. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC) And retirement from the military is something that takes months. He retired, then after that was finalized his unit was deployed. There's nothing nefarious there, no matter how much you pretend there is. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC) I remember when you actually used to try to make it seem like you were neutral. Now you don't try at all. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:54D5:C5CE:CF58:51F6 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Please, enlighten me, how are the facts not neutral? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Facepalm 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:54D5:C5CE:CF58:51F6 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Command sergeant major Thomas Barons (an actual Command Sergeant Major) and one of Tim's commanding officers stated in an interview that their unit trained for 6 mo in preparation for deployment while the actual orders came 2 mo after he filed retirement papers it is also undisputed that his unit was in training and in no way could he have not known that he would be deployed by those facts we can say undoubtedly he knew full well by retiring he would avoid a deployment into an actual "combat" situation. Only he knows his reasons but he knew he was avoiding deployment.BTW in the context of carrying a gun during combat or war I did change the word to accurately reflect the difference in terminology between the 2 speeches. 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Again, you've yet to cite any WP:RS. Instead of simply arguing, propose the text that you want added, along with citations for it. Then we can work through what the text will actually say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC) I guess I do not need a new cite since your cite from politico outlines the exact timeline I explained overlapping the pre deployment training with his retirement fact is he knew and you can't deny that part of it. He claims it was to run for congress maybe it was only he knows 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He doesn't just "claim that it was to run for Congress." As the CNN article notes with a link, "Walz filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for Congress on February 10, 2005" (link to the paperwork), and the Guard didn't announce a possible deployment until the following month. I'm not denying that he knew about the deployment before he retired. I'm disputing your claim that he "retired to avoid deployment." The Politico article doesn't say that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Also, you've yet to propose text that you want introduced. Are you going to do that or aren't you? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC) A few more sources referring to the swiftboating of Walz: Task and Purpose, Politico, NYT FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC) also in your cite task and purpose there are no dates listed at all except the may 2005 announcement to run for congress the only significant information is another commander in his unit making a Facebook post that he fulfilled his commitment and was entitled to retire absolutely nothing about the timing of his retirement or that he retired before he knew he would be deployed so please stop using cites without pertinent information 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Also, it turns out that Chris LaCivita, "a consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group" is involved here (NBC). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Your statements in this entire thread is proof forward that wikipedia has become nothing more than radical leftist propaganda, deflection and disinformation. 2601:18C:9083:B7F0:54D5:C5CE:CF58:51F6 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC) I cited CNN as WP:RS re: your false claim that he "retired to avoid deployment to Irac [sic]." You condemn CNN as a reliable source but have not cited any WP:RS at all. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC) https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface He retired shortly after he learned his unit could be deployed to Iraq according to Minnesota national guard. Also, imagine demanding WP:RS and citing Crap «News» Network, the irony there is hilarious. But such is the mental faculties, or rather lack thereof of neets who spend all day on wikipedia, how sad life must be Regardless, he was demoted to Master sargeant since he did not comply with the stipulations of his promotion, thus this article should reflect that 2001:4644:DC5F:0:587B:13F6:F13E:8196 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Justthenews.com is literally fake news. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC) @Muboshgu, Is justthenews.com listed as a unreliable source on WP? --Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Ooligan, it is not listed at WP:RSP. It hasn't been discussed there, likely because it hasn't been raised as an issue, meaning people trying to pass it off as RS. The site is run by John Solomon (political commentator) and our wiki bio on him describes his descent from legitimate journalism to being one of the core pushers of the Biden/Ukraine/Burisma hoax prior to the 2020 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your prompt response. -- Ooligan (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Consider this a reminder of WP's no personal attacks rule; don't do it again. As for "this article should reflect that," it does reflect that. It clearly says "He retired as command sergeant major on May 15, 2005. His rank was later changed to master sergeant for retirement benefit purposes, since he did not complete required additional coursework." FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Good point. I didn't even notice because I stopped reading their post when I saw the fake news site url. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC) I never stated he retired to avoid deployment to Irac I stated that he knew before hand that by retiring he would not be deployed and even said only he knows the reasons 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC) The country is spelled Iraq in English. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC) You absolutely did state that he "retired to avoid deployment to Irac." That quote is from your very first comment. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC) You are correct about my first quote but I think my timeline and explanation has more than explained and since we both agree and it is supported by the timeline I dont think the statement is out of line he retired, he knew that decision would avoid him being deployed and he was not deployed 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Don't say "we both agree," when we do not agree. You are continuing to ignore that he filed to run for Congress a month before the guard announced that it would later deploy. Moreover, "In a 2009 interview for the Library of Congress, Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees" (CNN). And for the umpteenth time, if you want text introduced on the page, propose some actual text for the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC) The IP that started this topic wrote, "... and retired to avoid deployment to Irac with his unit ..." and now the IP now writes the opposite, "I never stated he retired to avoid deployment to Irac ..." Ooligan (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Here's a longer quote of what Walz said: “I’ve been voting for commonsense legislation that protects the Second Amendment. But we can do background checks, we can do CDC research, we can make sure we don’t have reciprocal-carry among states, and we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” (from this video posted at X). Seems to me that if we're going to add something about the latter part of the quote, we also need to add something about the former part -- that the statement was made in the context of gun control. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He implied he went to war yes we know he was deployed in a support role out of country/danger why cant he say that? How do you explain away him calling himself a combat veteran in a speech running for governor.You dont address nor your cites any of the undisputed facts of this situation2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC) He never "implied he went to war", the Trump/Vance campaign is saying that. He never said he was a "combat veteran"; you can't point to a quote because it's imaginary. All of this is campaign spin. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC) During his run for governor 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Show us the quote in a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC) How convienent the webpage walzflannagin.org now forwards to donations for kamala harris/walz campain I wonder why that websight with all that information about Tim walz all of a sudden needed to be pulled down 2601:403:C002:A4B0:A94C:B6EF:F6C:6F5F (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) You have no source, only distraction. This thread needs to be closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC) I don't oppose shutting this thread down, but I think we're going to end up needing to add something to the article about the two related controversies (the responses to Walz saying "in war" and the timing of Walz's retirement) and claims that this is just another instance of swiftboating. However, I think we'd need to sort out the actual wording here before adding it to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC) We can write it up at Talk:Tim Walz/FAQ, which IPs will then likely ignore as they do the FAQs on RFK Jr and Harris's talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) His service awards says it all.... 1 ARCOM, and 2 AAM's for 24 years of service? No campaign ribbions, nothing. And he said he went to war. I've seen 2 years in PFC's with more awards. He clearly said :When I was in war, using these "Weapons of War". STOLEN VALOR! And if not, I would love to hear about the time when the U.S. ARMY issued him an AR-15. I'll be waiting..... 2600:1017:B11C:A0A3:AC87:ACA9:8670:771B (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC) No, we're done here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 (2)

Change: "In August 2003, Walz deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Vicenza, Italy, for nine months to serve with the European Security Force in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

Change Into: "In August 2003, Walz deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Vicenza, Italy, for nine months to serve with the European Security Force as part of Operation Enduring Freedom." (Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-guard-report-refutes-tim-walzs-claim-actually-toting-war-weapons-in-war)

Explanation: The Statement of the Minnesota National Guard makes it clear that he was technically part of the OEF: "The Minnesota National Guard told Fox News that Walz was part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) while he was stationed in Italy with his unit in 2005 ... : '"Second, there are questions about whether he served in OEF. His battalion was sent to Europe, in his case Vicenza to train units in artillery - his specialty was artillery. If you are deployed overseas in support of OEF according to the National Guard you officially served in OEF, whether you touched foot in Afghanistan or not. That is in his official military service record below.'" Kavikavikavi (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, Fox News is not considered a RS for political news. But I've been able to find two RSs that say Walz was "part of Operation Enduring Freedom," so I'll make the change, citing one or both of those. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible "military controversies" text

There's been a lot of discussion of these issues on this Talk page, as well as some edits/reversions to the article's text. Here’s some proposed text about the controversies re: Walz’s military service, though the length is probably WP:UNDUE. Should this be addressed in the article? What improvements do people suggest?

Controversy about Walz having used an assault rifle “in war”:

In a video clip posted by the Harris campaign in August 2024 about gun legislation, Walz argued in favor of things like background checks and researching the effects of gun violence, also saying “we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” (X) Some Republicans objected to the phrase “in war,” as Walz had not served in combat. (add citations) Vice presidential candidate JD Vance called it “stolen valor garbage” and “dishonest.” (ABC) The Harris campaign downplayed the phrasing issue, noting that Walz has “carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times.” (CBS)

Controversy about the timing of Walz’s retirement:

On February 10, 2005, Walz filed to run for Congress. (CNN) Walz retired from the National Guard in May 2005, and CNN reports that “in a 2009 interview for the Library of Congress (Library of Congress), Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees" (same CNN citation). ABC News reports that National Guard records show that Walz’s unit “received an alert order on July 14, 2005, two months after Walz retired,” and not receiving the mobilization order until August, then mobilizing in October. (ABC) Vance criticized the timing of Walz’s retirement, saying that “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, … he dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,” and calling it “shameful.” (CNN and ABC again) In response, the Harris-Walz campaign emphasized Walz’s retirement “after 24 years of military service” and thanked Vance for his own service. (CBS)

A number of media outlets have responded that these controversies are another instance of swiftboating (Task and Purpose, Politico, NYT). NBC News reports that Chris LaCivita, an adviser to the Trump campaign, and “a consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group … signaled an eagerness to reopen the playbook on Walz.” (NBC)

It's also possible to introduce responses by others, including those who served with Walz and others who've served (e.g., Sen. Mark Kelly). But I'm already concerned about the length. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Never, not once has a US Military unit issue an AR-15. M16's and M4"s are not available for legal purchase in the general civilian population. 2603:7083:3041:3923:CD7E:A55C:FF01:12A3 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any WP:RS raising that issue in this context, nor have you cited any. My goal here is to come up with WP:NPOV consensus text that's supported by RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is very well researched and shows the many limitations on this article. It seems a request for consensus is in order.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that some of this is already being introduced into the article, though not touching on the responses by Republicans or claims of swiftboating. Unless there's interest in discussing it further here, maybe that's the way to go. FactCheck is now out with a good discussion of many of these issues. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Reywas92, I see that you've twice removed the fact that Republicans criticized Walz about the timing of his retirement, saying only that they "used the timing of his military retirement as a smear campaign." While I agree that what they're doing is swiftboating, I think WP:NPOV requires that we also characterize what Republicans are doing from their perspective. Rather than edit warring, let's talk this through here. (And I'm putting this comment here because I think it's related to this category. I'm not expecting you to engage with my rough draft above, some of which has already been introduced into the article; I think the more succinct text in the article is better than what I wrote above.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV does not require a he-said, she-said as if all sides are valid and must be presented from the perspective of the accusers. Even to just say they criticized it or especially to include quoted phrases implies there a legitimate basis to such criticism, and we do not have to posit it as a statement followed by a response when the former is plainly being made in bad faith. Those who study disinformation are clear that the original lie should not be restated even if followed by a clarification. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't go by what people who study disinformation say. We go by WP's policies, which include WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Plenty of RS report that he's been criticized for it. I'm not saying that all sides are equally valid. I'm pointing out that WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I'm no longer suggesting that we include quotes. And given that it's one phrase out of an entire paragraph, it's getting a proportionately small mention, while presenting facts that counter it. But it's inappropriate not to mention it at all.

There's an entire page devoted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy It points out that the attacks were discredited, but it clearly doesn't refrain from noting out that some criticized his military service. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion NPOV requires us to avoid false balance. I haven't looked very hard but if there are some good reliable sources tackling the issue and not concluding it's an intellectually dishonest, bad faith GOP attack, the article should say that. Until then, we must avoid giving UNDUE weight to partisan smears.-Ich (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's an intellectually dishonest, bad faith GOP attack, but how is it a false balance when most of the paragraph is devoted to debunking it? Consider the discussions by RS like NPR and FactCheck -- they don't shy away from specifying what the attack is while also presenting counterfacts. Even though I think it is a smear campaign, I also think that NPOV requires us to acknowledge that it's seen differently on the other side. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ich and Reywas92, I'm hoping that you'll continue this discussion until we reach a consensus. From the comments on this talk page, how to handle the article's text about this is clearly contentious. We should try to work it out, and if we can't, perhaps there needs to be an RfC, given the number of people who've gone back and forth on the edits about this / the number of people who've commented on it here. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to acknowledge beyond that they're making a stink about it because it's a convenient line of attack. No one making these attacks at the top legitimately believes a 24-year veteran with a four-year-old at home is not entitled to retire, whether or not there's a chance they could be deployed in the next two years, and there's no need to treat that as a neutral concern. The article shouldn't get bogged down with the comments made by so-and-so that's it's better to fight than run for Congress. As an encyclopedia article that is covering the whole biography in one place rather a news article that's going into the details, we don't have to present every "side" here. Reywas92^Talk 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are only two sides on this particular issue: those who condemn Walz for retiring before his unit deployed, and those who characterize that as an baseless smear. The media mostly don't take a side but instead report on both sides + the sequence of events. Some cite it as another potential instance of swiftboating. Right now, sole characterization of the Republican claims is "as a smear campaign that has been compared to swiftboating." But there are WP:RS that do not characterize it that way, and it seems to me that we need to acknowledge that.

I don't see anyone claiming that he wasn't entitled to retire; rather, they're claiming that he was irresponsible to do so and perhaps did an end-run in order to do so (his retirement was finalized in May of 2005, but it's unclear when he originally filed the paperwork to retire). He was clearly still considering the possibility of deployment in March of 2005, after he'd already filed to run for Congress, saying "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq." "I don't want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race. I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic supporters and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion I find the current wording adequate. The article describes the timeline and that he has been attacked for the timing of his retirement before a potential deployment. Adding a paragraph of laundered GOP oppo research would be UNDUE and false balance. I think less is more here.-Ich (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ich, I'm not talking about adding a paragraph. I'm talking about replacing "have used the timing of his military retirement as a smear campaign that has been compared to swiftboating" with something like "have attacked the timing of his military retirement, while others have characterized that as swiftboating." Reywas92 has twice undone that kind of edit, and I'm trying to resolve it here instead of edit warring. The current wording says that it is a smear campaign (taking a side), whereas I see the latter wording as more neutral.

His retirement was finalized in May, but there's an open question in the timeline about when he first filed the paperwork to retire. A Fox News article says that the NG told them he filed 5-7 months before he retired, but Fox News isn't WP:RS for political news, and I haven't found any RS independently confirming that. Did he file before or after the NGPAO announced the possible deployment? In March, after hearing the NGPAO announcement of possible deployment, his stance was "I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization" but "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on..." I can understand how some think that he reneged on that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

He is NOT CSM

He did not retire as a Command Sergeant Major. Please correct this error. He retired as a First Sergeant. 2600:100E:B087:BDC4:ED76:F890:C572:E701 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean master sergeant? That is what the national guard insisted and disputes. [20]https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-disputes-tim-walzs-military-biography-1936038 . However, he was selected to and frocked as an e9. In all my times in the Navy, no one would ever dispute someone having achieved a rank they were frocked for. It's on the military to ensure you have all prerequisits before they frock you. But it is correct he retired before his pay went into effect as e9. There's a lot of contention about what that means regarding rank achieved. Being frocked means you've achieved that rank, and have ownership to the claim, as far as anyone who actually knows what's going on inside the military is concerned. Being paid is what entitled you to various benefits beyond that. 70.23.11.158 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As I explained above, previously you could be pinned a higher rank without having the course requirements. It just started a clock and if you did not complete the course requirements in that timeframe then you lost the rank, so long as the Army actually offered you a date for the course, and you didn't miss it through no fault of your own, like having an injury. I was pinned both E5 and E6 before completing the course requirements. SM academy is a considerably lengthy residency course. It makes perfect sense that he wouldn't complete it if he planned on retiring.

And yes, even if you lost it later, you held that rank and pay grade between your promotion and reduction orders. GMG^talk 01:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Well stated @GreenMeansGo. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

GMG, your explanation is your explanation based on your personal experience and personal knowledge. That's all great and thank you for your service. Regardless, Wikipedia wants and requires reliable sources, which you, as an editor, are not. I would imagine that even the Harris/Walz campaign webpage, as well as other reliable sources no longer stating that Walz was a CMSgt at retirement are sufficient to make sure he is no longer mentioned in this article as a retired CMSgt. Rather, to note that at one time he served in the capacity of a CMSgt but was reduced in rank and retired E-8, not E-9. The why it happened that way should also be noted. Don't you agree? Let's not also forget that when being made an E-9 with contingency, when he allowed the Army to promote him, he made a commitment to the Army, the United States Government and the people of this nation. That commitment was to follow through with attending and completing the course, already knowing how difficult, time encompassing, and intense it is. From what I've read, he didn't attend even one class, so it's not as if he started and stopped because his plans changed. One of the stories from his camp that I've read is he put in his papers for retirement in late 2004, at least five months before he separated in 2005. Now, all excuses and projected reasons aside, the bottom line is he reneged and continued to refer to himself until just recently as a CMSgt, an E-9, even though he knew he wasn't. That seems pretty problematic to me, and on a personal level, I'm genuinely troubled by it. In my book, a veteran who lived and perpetuated that kind of lie for that long is not worthy of trust until they've admitted their wrong to the nation and apologized. Thanks for listening. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's AR 600-8-19. See also previous revisions. I'm not the source. I just happen to have a long while in Army administration and finance. The "but it wasn't a real promotion" doesn't have any basis in Army regulation. GMG^talk 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024

The rank that he is listed as leaving the army at is 'Command Sargeant Major', this is incorrect as it is established fact & is also covered further down in the article. He final rank, as per DoD records is 'Master Sargeant" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_sergeant#U.S._Army I request, as the page is locked, that the listing of his rank as 'Command Sargeant Major' undrr his military service section be changed to correct it's inaccuracy & to correct show it as 'Master Sargeant'. 118.208.235.121 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - the edit request was not posed with a suggested change in content supported by a WP:RS source. The discussion above and article describing his rank at retirement is correct as stated under Military service: Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major by his final day of service. The downgrade of one rank was effective from the day before his military retirement. Zefr (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Military rank

Please correct his rank to masterSargent Schafercm (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read every other thread on this page that discusses this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"Command Sergeant Major" is a role...not a "rank"...which is also an incorrect term for an enlisted person's "rate" (the correct term; again, not 'rank'). 208.98.218.134 (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Schafercm. Please see my comments below with a source about what is true about his rank. 2601:601:512:639D:4470:B7A9:DA2A:CE17 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"Political positions" should be merged into other sections

It's odd that he's the governor of Minnesota but most of his successes as governor are in a completely different section that also includes his House tenure. Also, his governorship could get its own article. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the proposed merging; there are entire pages devoted to the political positions of Harris, Trump, and Vance. My guess is that it's just an indication that we need more content in these sections besides his official actions as Governor (e.g., quotes). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example, I see that the section on Abortion and reproductive rights, which was previously under Political positions, was moved in toto to the Tenure section. But it's not clear to me that the ratings from Planned Parenthood and the National Right to Life Committee really belong under Tenure. And a Political position section on reproductive rights might include quotes from him like “Abortion is health care,” and "Even if we wouldn't make the same choice for ourselves, there's a golden rule: mind your own damn business!" But, I don't know that it makes sense to have two sections titled Abortion and reproductive rights, one under Tenure and another under Political positions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A separate section for positions only works if statements are time-defined. Not "Walz believes", but in 200X Walz supported or backed or said. And provide context: in the course of a debate on X following Y court decision or Z notorious incident... Rutsq (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The content that might be appropriate for a Political positions section is not limited to statements. For example, right now the Political positions subsection on Labor and worker's rights notes things like "In October 2023, he also joined striking United Auto Workers members on a picket line. He is a former member of two teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers." But there's other content there that might be more appropriate for the Tenure section.

Do you think it makes sense to have subsections with the same title under both Tenure and Political positions as long as there's relevant content for each? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution, having overlapping content in both the Tenure and Political positions sections. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Change "According to the Minnesota National Guard, Walz retired before his unit was officially notified in July 2005 of their confirmed deployment to Iraq."

Change into: "According to the Minnesota National Guard, Walz had put his retirement papers in 5-7 months prior to his retirement in May and retired before his unit was officially notified in July 2005 of their confirmed deployment to Iraq."(Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-guard-report-refutes-tim-walzs-claim-actually-toting-war-weapons-in-war; https://www.foxnews.com/media/former-member-gov-walzs-battalion-ditched-accuses-walz-stolen-valor;) Kavikavikavi (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is not considered a WP:RS for political news, per this Perennial sources description: [21]. The RSs that I've been able to find that mention it all source it to Fox News. If some RS confirms it independently, then we can add it. Also see this related talk page discusson. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed my mind per further discussion above and have added something about this to the section on his military service. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Add a mention of his statement about carrying weapons "in war"

I propose adding the following into the "Military service" subsection, after the mention of Operation Enduring Freedom, with a citation to ABC News:

Walz carried and used weapons of war during his service when the U.S. was at war, but he never carried weapons in active combat. He has been accused of claiming to have been in active combat when he said that he carried weapons "in war" rather than "during war".

I know this topic has been brought up before in the Talk page, but it got drowned out by the retirement issue and the rank issue. This topic has also been covered by AP News, the Washington Post, NBC, NPR, CNN, CBS, The Guardian, The New York Times, Politico, The Hill, Axios, Vox, etc. It should be mentioned. I have tried to word it in a way that gives due weight to each part of the issue, is neutral, and conforms to WP:NPOV. Jade Ten (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be addressed and think your proposed text works. I'm more inclined to place it after the paragraph that begins "During his political career, ...," as I think that the issues of post-service criticism go together. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Accused" doesn't feel or read neutral to me, it reads a little WP:POINTY. As if anyone calling him out for what he said ("when I carried weapons in war") is in the wrong. I propose changing the wording to "He was confronted in media and through statements of veterans for claiming to have been in active combat when he said that he carried weapons "in war" rather than "during war"." A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

FactOrOpinion, I agree. Alaska4Me2, to find consensus, how about this: (changes shown in italic)

Walz carried and used weapons of war during his service when the U.S. was at war, but he never carried weapons in active combat. In a 2018 statement against gun violence, he said, "We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at". His choice of the words "in war" rather than "during war" was questioned by the press. Vance and other veterans said that he had claimed to have been in active combat.

>>Note the significance of commas. In the 2018 video (link?), one hears Walz saying: "We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at". Further support to the comma being after the word carried: If you take out the phrase "that I carried in war" what remains doesn't make sense. If you take out "that I carried" you have a sensible phrase. If wikipedia will be neutral - Walz' words without commas should be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvkcanada (talk • contribs) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to the video: [22]

It's also reported without commas, as here: [23], and that's how it's quoted in the Criticism section of the article. It's not clear to me that it should be addressed in twice in the article, but if it is, then I think it should be quoted the same way in both places. I'm now inclined to quote it without commas and leave the interpretation to the reader.

Your interpretation is possible, but it's not mainstream, and the Harris campaign has already said that Walz misspoke. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording "he was confronted...for claiming" assumes the accusation to be true. Better to drop "accused" and "confronted" and just go with "he said this...they said that." Jade Ten (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I went with "confronted" to kind of compromise, but I like the removal of the aggressive tone or nature of the wording much better. Nice work. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 (2)

Change Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant. He objectively retired with a reduced rank of Master Sergeant. Big oof. 204.210.106.43 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/03/tim-walz-national-guard-career-minnesota-governor-race, CSM is accurate, MS was a benefits change after he retired. The "Military service" section clearly identifies this, and the infobox shows the highest rank. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

NOS and retirement

An edit was made, removing reference to Doug Julin's statement because the source was the Washington Examiner.

Here is a link to the CNN (Laura Coates) interview that captures what Julin had to say https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj09nFnGKXg Jenlaggg (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Military rank error

Walz's rank in his profile, under "Military service," says his rank is CSM, which is incorrect. While he performed the duties of one briefly, he isn't one. I suggest that be changed. OrlikGS89 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, and it does need to be changed. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@OrlikGS89, @Alaska4Me2: Per the Star Tribune Source listed "After the units returned to Minnesota in early 2004, Walz was promoted to command sergeant major." Post-retirement is a different story, but the rank in the infobox always retains the highest rank one had, even if they didn't retire with it. Wozal (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

His rank was given on contingency. If the contingency isn't met, then the rank is removed and the soldier is demoted. He performed his MOS (job) as a CSM, but because he didn't fulfill his commitment, he never really was a CSM. That's why his demotion happened not after retirement but one day before. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed over and over again on this talk page. Multiple users have stated their reasoning on why there is currently no error made. Not retiring at a rank does not negate one from serving in that rank. The timing of exactly when his ranking occurred remains unclear though. This article from AP NEWS mentions "Harris’ campaign has referred to Walz as a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. He did in fact achieve that rank, but personnel files show he was reduced in rank months after retiring. That left him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes."

The fact remains that he still achieved his rank even if he didn't retire with it in the same way that people who serve interim positions still held that position and did the responsibilities of that position even if they don't keep that position on a post-interim basis. Changing this would change a lot of articles and would result in substantial changes. As such, that conversation is likely to best had on Template talk:Infobox military person since it would impact how the template is being used. Wozal (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You are using outdated articles in referencing what the campaign states in his bio. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/08/harris-walz-military-credentials-00173236

Ronny Jackson bio was updated to reflect his rank of Captain and not Rear Admiral as he was also demoted post retirement. 47.203.84.32 (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jackson was demoted by the Navy because of misconduct [24], after a formal DoDIG investigation into his conduct [25]. The situation here is not analogous. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ronny Jackson uses his Twitter bio to still refer to himself as an admiral. For some reason, the IPs here discussing Walz's rank at retirement aren't on Jackson's article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The instructions for the infobox read "highest rank achieved unless reduced" until this discussion in 2021, fwiw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

New source on retirement

There's two sources, one from the Wall Street Journal and one from Fox News (which WSJ is referencing) that specify the timing of him submitting his retirement papers. The Fox News article states:

"The Minnesota National Guard told Fox News Walz's unit was not given deployment orders to Iraq until July and he had put his retirement papers in five to seven months prior to his retirement in May 2005."

The WSJ article states:

Fox News reports that the Pentagon says Mr. Walz put in his retirement request several months earlier, though it’s fair to ask if he was aware of the possible Iraq deployment.

So, I know Fox is considered marginally reliable on a case by case basis whereas WSJ is generally reliable, but it's notable that they're directly quoting Fox. In a case like this I think it's fair to say that it's true, it's not plausible that Fox would falsify a statement from the National Guard. With that in mind I think we can add a line in the pertinent section that states that his retirement papers were filed five to seven months prior to his retirement. As such:

Old: In February 2005, Walz submitted official documents to run for Congress and represent Minnesota there. The next month, his National Guard unit was notified of a possible deployment to Iraq within the next two years. Walz retired from military service in May 2005, later explaining that he wanted to focus on his ongoing campaign for Congress and did not want to violate the Hatch Act, which forbids some political activities by federal government employees.

New: In late 2004 Walz filed for retirement with the Minnesota National Guard, and in February 2005 he submitted official documents to run for Congress and represent Minnesota. The next month, his National Guard unit was notified of a possible deployment to Iraq within the next two years. Walz' retirement from military service was finalized in May 2005, he later explained that he wanted to focus on his ongoing campaign for Congress and did not want to violate the Hatch Act, which forbids some political activities by federal government employees.

Thoughts? I think the wording I am proposing could be improved. Deagonx (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that paperwork is filed sometime before the retirement is finalized, but I'm still a little puzzled by the relationship among parts of this: he filed his FEC paperwork in February, but if he filed his retirement paperwork in late 2024, what was the motivation to retire, given that he hadn't yet filed to run? That is, did he file his retirement paperwork in anticipation of filing his FEC paperwork later? That sequence, while possible, strikes me as a bit odd. I'll try to listen to his Library of Congress interview (the source of his explanation that he retired because "he wanted to focus on his ongoing campaign for Congress and did not want to violate the Hatch Act") to see if that clarifies anything, though I doubt he'd go into the precise sequencing there. The Fox News claim also conflicts with statements elsewhere, such as "Walz submitted his Guard retirement papers in May 2005" (Star Tribune), though perhaps the reporter only meant when the paperwork was finalized. Also, in March 2005, Walz said "I don't want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed," (campaign press release), so why would he be wondering if he might be deployed if he knew that he'd already filed paperwork to retire? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've now listened to the relevant part of the LOC interview, and it doesn't clarify when he first filed paperwork to retire. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It was possible he could've been stop lossed if the orders came through before his retirement finalized. Presumably he had made the decision to retire and run for Congress, but the process for retiring from the military is lengthy so it doesn't strike me as odd that he would've started that process before filing for his congressional run. Deagonx (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, but there is no source for it other than Fox News, which is not WP:RS for political news, per this note on the Perennial sources page. I haven't been able to find any RS for it; all of the other sources I've found cite it as coming from Fox News. Also, as I pointed out, in March of 2005, he was still talking about the potential for his being deployed, which doesn't make sense to me if he'd filed paperwork for retirement months earlier -- are you thinking that he had the potential for being stop lossed in mind and simply didn't know when his retirement would be formalized? Either way, unless we can find a RS for this, I don't see how it can be added. Sidenote: there is an Edit request posted below about this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus on Fox News doesn't prohibit using it for politics entirely:

"As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas."

This isn't an exceptional claim, this is 1) A very matter of fact assertion about a statement they received from the Minnesota National Guard, and 2) Not a piece of information that is especially helpful to their overall stance on the matter. Deagonx (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Deagonx, OK, you've convinced me to change my mind. I'll add some text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ich I see that you added a "better source needed" tag on the info about Walz having submitted his paperword 5-7 months before retirement. What do you think of the discussion here about whether or not Fox is an acceptable source for this? Would you prefer this Politifact article [26] that repeats the claim but sources it to Fox? There's also the WSJ article mentioned above, again sourcing it to Fox. As best I can tell, no other outlet has attempted to independently confirm this with the MN National Guard. Do you think it should be deleted? The info is certainly contrary to Fox's overall political bias, so there's a legit question of why they'd include it if they don't have confirmation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me; I added the BSN tag without seeing the talk page discussion. I agree with your point that the "5-7 month" figure seems to undermine conservative attacks on Walz, but because it's a range, it sounds like whoever gave them the figure didn't have an actual date to begin with.

My preferences are first: remove it altogether, or second: leave it up with the BSN tag and/or attribution ("the MNG told Fox") until a better source comes along. Fox News is still generally unreliable for politics. Even though I personally don't think Fox fabricated this single (non-exceptional) claim, it is nested in the midst of paragraph after paragraph of partisan attacks. I'm leery of making gut-feeling exceptions in a high-profile BLP. We could also cite a PBS fact check that finds Fox's claim worth repeating, with attribution, as does The Telegraph.

Given the amount of media attention this is getting, I surmise a better source will come along soon. It's annoying the MNG or Harris campaign haven't specifically put out public statements or documents, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "you write a wiki article with the sources you have, not the sources you might want or wish to have at a later time." Ich (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Tim Walz was NOT a commander! That must be removed immediately. Its false and untrue. 71.183.57.115 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources to one of the other sections on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• You seem to be confusing the position of Commander with the rank of Command Sergeant Major. GMG^talk 11:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We now have AP News, which qualifies as a reputable source, saying that he retired as a Master Sergeant. See https://apnews.com/article/walz-national-guard-military-ae43d684bf1319e535f9f620552155d7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reputable Sources

"now"? We always had that. He served as a Command Sergeant Major, and retired as a Master Sergeant because he didn't complete the requirements to make it permanent before his retirement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so why does the Insert say CSM? Reputable Sources (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year is not Substantiated

Reference 23 which substantiates that he "earned the title of Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the year" does not actually mention this at all. The sentence should be removed unless unless actual substantiation can be located.RPLzoom (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC) RPLzoom (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It has an internet footprint [https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-08-06/democrat-walz-vice-president-harris-14761755.html][https://krocnews.com/meet-mn-governor-and-lt-governor-candidates-tim-walz-and-peggy-flanagan/] but from 1989 a solid reference may be hard to find. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the visibility of this article and WP's requirement on RS only, this should be deleted until RS cover it. Else, it becomes fluff political language. Feel free to obtain consensus here also.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Added cite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, not sure that's a good cite to use. It cites Military.com for the information, more or less, but Military.com cites "official biographies". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Forbes article: [27] FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, may not be verifiable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove Criticism Section

ALL criticism sections violate NPOV and are bad form, and this one is no exception. The bit about his response to George Floyd riots is already covered in the sub-section "Police reform and protest response", the bit about the F NRA rating should be placed in the sub-section "Guns," and the "stolen valor" controversy should be covered in the VP campaign section. Please remove the Criticism section ASAP!! Woozybydefault (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree and removed the recently added WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Police reform and protest response

I've been reviewing the "Police Reform and Protest Response" section and comparing it to other nearby subtopics. It appears that the WP is disproportionately high due to the extensive details (which might be better suited for George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul) provided as compared to other sections listed, including the reactions of other individuals and claims related to his actions. I've been considering other governors who faced similar protests during their tenure, like Jay Nixon during the Ferguson unrest. On Nixon's page, events from his term are grouped together, which made me wonder if it would be beneficial to merge some of the overlapping subheadings under "Governor of Minnesota (2019–present)" and "Political Positions." I believe the merger would allow positions to be much clearer and ensure that something isn't overly represented. Wozal (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

See the earlier discussion here [28] FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that solves the latter part of the question; though I wish there was more commentary on the linked comment. Consensus is hard to see if only one person comment. I still think that the Police reform and protest response section is overly weighted in terms of its context though and would benefit by trimming a paragraph or two from it. Wozal (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Disputed biographical claims section is missing 74.101.18.209 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done -- no specific change was proposed (least of all with supporting sources provided). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

False statements during 2006 campaign concerning DUI conviction

CNN and BBC report Walz's 2006 campaign promoted falsehoods about his DUI conviction. I tried adding this to the personal life section covering his DUI which user:Wozal removed since it's about his congressional campaign more than about his personal life. I'm fine if we put this in the section about his 2006 campaign, or in the section on the 2024 campaign (since it was only uncovered recently; apparently nobody challenged the errors in 2006), probably preferring 2006 campaign. If there are objections let me know. TocMan (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TocMan, thanks for bringing this up on the talk page. I believe this content could potentially fit well within a campaign's dedicated page for that year. (Personally, I think we miss out on a lot of information by not having this for every campaign but I could see where that's best avoided to not become a directory of every single event that may or may not be notable and to avoid becoming an indiscriminate collection of information) Specifically, we're discussing a DUI charge from 1995, for which he had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. This article, dated 2006, seems to confirm that his hearing was problematic. However, the lack of coverage elsewhere makes me question how newsworthy this was. Would people have paid attention if it was anyone else? What are the motives behind this case getting so much attention from the media now, nearly 30 years after Walz has stated he no longer drinks?

Fast forward 11 years, and his campaign (as noted above) issued a statement that contradicts the previously addressed charge. This is a tricky situation since the statements weren’t made by Walz, and we also need to consider Wikipedia:DUE to ensure that it isn’t given undue weight if included. We’re aware that politicians sometimes drink and get pulled over, but we don’t document every instance of it. Therefore, we need to carefully evaluate whether this information is relevant, how much weight and detail it should receive, and where it should be placed in the article. We also need to avoid presenting disputed assertions as facts, which is a common challenge with conflicting information about major candidates, whether it relates to statements or timelines. How much more detail is needed in relationship to what's already covered in the article? Currently, the drunk driving incident takes up 2 lines of the article; the same amount of space or less is used by Medical debt (which he signed a huge bill on), free school meals (again, another major bill), and information on his background checks; all of which likely should have more weight than a DUI before more information is added about a statement one of his aides made 18 years ago. The people involved in his 2006 campaign likely have nothing to do with his 2024 campaign and as such, having statements in the 2024 campaign being made from the 2006 campaign feels disingenuous to me (unless someone in his 2024 campaign made a similar statement.). Wozal (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Persuasive language

The word "but" appeared a few places it shouldn't. This should be informational, not opinionated. 2600:100F:B12C:4F7:5057:C92E:37E8:FDB6 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Please specify which parts you want edited EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Bias?

I am curious as to the reasoning behind the inclusion of hoaxes like the 'couch controversy' under JD Vance's Vice Presidential Campaign section, where it mentions that it is a hoax, in addition to the controversy around women who don't want to have children. This in comparison to Tim Walz's Vice Presdential Campaign section which seems not to mention the controversy over him lying about military service (in rank and in operation), lying about his coaching career, lying about his wife having IV - or in some way bringing some controversy to his campaign if he did not mean to be misleading.

For the record, I am not an American, and thus not a Republican or the like - I've just noticed the discrepency between the two articles. 2A02:C7C:52D5:9A00:3C37:F819:28C2:F546 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"lying about military service (in rank and in operation)" - See above this comment, this topic has been discussed repeatedly. If you feel as though something else is missing from the article that is worth mentioning, feel free to make an edit request with a "change X to Y" format. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Weapons of War

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

Just say "weapons," not "weapons of war." 2600:1009:B073:B807:5D97:7A56:64CC:F7EB (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done The source indicates that they are "weapons of war," and this is eminently relevant to this section, since the topic is about those specific weapons. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Weapons of War" Actual Statement, Which is Correct?

Currently on Wikipedia as of 2024-8-22, "the At a meeting about reducing gun violence in 2018, he argued for some kinds of reform, saying, "We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at."" The reference is a New York Times article that cannot be read without a subscription... However, most of the sources I could find stated he actually said “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” including the Associated Press 162.232.217.207 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

See above. The article explains the ranks, the only issue is what's shown in the infobox. In any case, a letter to the editor is not a basis for sourcing in a biography, we already have better sources than that. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What are the better sources? Do you have his dd-214? That would be the ideal source for this. And it’s important to change the info box as that his not the rank he retired under. It is specifically misleading because yes that was the highest rank he “obtained” but he didn’t actually obtain it as he didn’t follow through on the 3 requirements to retain that rank. He has campaigned that he is the highest enlisted man to get into congress but that is a bold face lie when it comes to rank of command sergeant major. New York Post released an article yesterday where they followed up with the writers of the article I linked. 162.232.217.207 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The system was that you would be promoted and then have a fixed amount of time to complete your NCOES/NCOPDS to keep your rank, AFAIK about a year and a half without circumstances like an injury. Doesn't mean he wasn't a CSM. It just means that he ran out the clock on the required course. And anyway, why would you try to demote him from CSM to SGM instead of MSG? Tell me without telling me that you don't know how ranks work. GMG^talk 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

My mistake I made a typo. The article states that he was reduced to MSG. The point people are trying to make is that he didn’t retire as that and shouldn’t be labeled as that. 162.232.217.207 (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If he didn't spend three years as CSM, he would retire as MSG for benefits purposes. That's the "high three" rule. Your retirement is based on the highest rank you held for at least three years. I've known at least one Major who realized they weren't going to make Lite Colonel before retirement and just resigned their commission and went back to enlisted. It didn't make any difference in retirement because of the high three rule. Seargent Major Academy is a long freaking course, and if I was about to retire, I wouldn't do it either. It's not the same thing as being reduced in rank for disciplinary reasons. GMG^talk 16:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Close. "High-3" is calculated based off pay, not rank. See https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/

In Sep 2003 the Army required completion of SMC prior to promotion to E-9. Walz' promotion was a year after that took effect; however, as NG he was eligible for conditional promotion (completion of SMC being the condition), with a reduction upon failure to meet the condition.

Separation due to retirement is not an exemption from having to complete NCOES as part of conditional promotion. Enrollment in the non-resident SMC (i.e. correspondence courses + a short resident phase) requires the enrollee to sign a statement of agreement acknowledging a two-year obligation of service commencing upon graduation of the resident phase. See https://www.armywriter.com/r600_8_19.pdf (oldest I could find, dated 2010) paragraphs 7-12, 7-14, and 7-23. 173.59.123.7 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to not get too far out in the weeds, but yes, the calculation is based on base pay, which is simply rank plus time. You seem to know your way around a pair of boots, and I'm not sure if you were Active Component, but for the Guard, this is the system that was used for a long time. Guard Soldiers have lives and careers outside the uniform. So attending extended training can require somewhat more planning than for an AC Soldier. GMG^talk 10:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz retired as a command sergeant major, but his rank was later changed to Master Sergeant, one rank below, because he did not complete the requirements to hold the rank into retirement, according to documents provided by the Minnesota Army National Guard. Consequently, Walz’s retirement benefits are those of a master sergeant, not a command sergeant major.

Even so, it is OK for Walz to cite his CSM rank in his biography and campaign materials because he, in fact, served in that rank, according to Master Sgt. Blair Heusdens of the Minnesota National Guard Public Affairs Office.

“In his case, Tim Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major in the Minnesota National Guard, and it was the highest and last rank that he held in our organization,” Heusdens said. “It is correct for him to say that he served as a command sergeant major.” 98.13.134.187 (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/answer-man-is-walzs-rank-rank 98.13.134.187 (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Upon separation and retirement, Tim Walkz was issued an NGB Form 22 Report of Separation and Record of Service rather than a DD214, Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty. The sourced NGB Form 22A clearly indicates that he reitred as a MSG E-8.

While DD Form 214 is designated for active duty service, NGB Form 22 is meant for those who served in the Army National Guard. The NGB Form 22 is the National Guard equivalent of the DD Form 214 and is proof of service for Army National Guard service members.

https://twitter.com/ashleyhayek/status/1821311860030701851?s=61&t=0ipFzPIARRtVrK5D94Q-bg EMDG332 (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

he was still a command sergeant major 98.13.134.187 (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/03/tim-walz-national-guard-career-minnesota-governor-race, CSM is accurate, MS was a reduction after retirement for benefit purposes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Not correct according to an investigative article from the Washington Post. If you read that article, his reduction to Master Sergeant came before he retired, and WaPo cited "National Guard authorities", not the letter to the editor.

So this Wiki article begs the question: Should the infobox |rank= parameter relay his highest attained rank, should it note "provisional", or should it relay the rank he retired with? My vote is change the infobox to stop misleading readers. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC) — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Upon separation and retirement, Tim Walkz was issued an NGB Form 22 Report of Separation and Record of Service rather than a DD214, Certificate of Discharge from Active Duty. The below sourced NGB Form 22A clearly indicates that he retired as a MSG E-8.

(While DD Form 214 is designated for active duty service, NGB Form 22 is meant for those who served in the Army National Guard. The NGB Form 22 is the National Guard equivalent of the DD Form 214 and is proof of service for Army National Guard service members.)

https://twitter.com/ashleyhayek/status/1821311860030701851?s=61&t=0ipFzPIARRtVrK5D94Q-bg EMDG332 (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Unverified Source: Command Sergeant Major (also, merge Command Sgt Major topics, please)

Referring to this: https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz. Presently and rightly protected.

This is a paid letter to an editor, and its sources are not verified. While it's acceptable to use letters to editorial boards as primary sources, this is a commercial advertisement being passed on as verified fact.

The letter "cites" sources that cannot be found and as such, are dicta. At worst, the source needs to be flagged as unverified or removed altogether. There are multiple issue with this source, including a biased tone, no contrary sources presenting another perspective, on top of the fact that there is no mention of the fact that the source isn't a genuine letter, it's paid media. Hardly meets Wikipedia's citation guidelines.

If there are other sources that don't reference this one, we ought to use that instead. SinkingFeeling (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely 72.94.167.111 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is now a Washington Post article that cites "National Guard officials". Their investigative conclusion is that saying he retired as a Command Sergeant Major is "inaccurate".

As such, at the very least, the infobox should not show his rank as Command Sergeant Major. I support changing that. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 01:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

unnamed "National Guard officials" is imprecise when there are named members in his unit on record:

Even so, it is OK for Walz to cite his CSM rank in his biography and campaign materials because he, in fact, served in that rank, according to Master Sgt. Blair Heusdens of the Minnesota National Guard Public Affairs Office.

https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/answer-man-is-walzs-rank-rank 98.13.134.187 (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No argument about the WaPo article. I agree with the overall point that he is a Sgt. Major (ret.). When he retired, he was Cmd. Sgt. Major, and that is not disputable. In another part of this combined topic, I cited the Army promotion guidelines that detail that Walz's promotion was rescinded in retirement - not actually demoted.

I'm satisfied that the topic was merged. However,because the page is locked, the wctrib.com article is still presented on equal footing (this is the reason for my topic).

The cited material, https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz, isn't consistent with Wikipedia's rules about valid, verified, and trustworthy sources. If we're going to continue using this source, it deserves to be labelled as a poor source. SinkingFeeling (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (3)

Change Tim Walz listed rank from "Command Sergeant Major" to "Master Sergeant." The narrative in his military career section explains that he retired as a Master Sergeant because he did not complete coursework at the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. DonLongfellow (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/03/tim-walz-national-guard-career-minnesota-governor-race, CSM is accurate, MS was a benefits change after he retired. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If that was actually the highest rank he obtained, he would not have been reduced in rank after his retirement. Service members retain the rank they retire with if they do it properly. The best thing to solve this issue is to get his separation documents. That is the only source that is 100% correct. 162.232.217.207 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"While Walz temporarily held the title of command sergeant major he "retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy," Army Lt. Col. Kristen Augé, the Minnesota National Guard’s State Public Affairs Officer"

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface EMDG332 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Justthenews.com is operated by John Solomon (political commentator), as unreliable a source as there is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I respectfully request reconsideration.

1.) The source is reliable.

a.) John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist, author and digital media entrepreneur who serves as Chief Executive Officer and Editor in Chief of Just the News. Before founding Just the News, Solomon played key reporting and executive roles at some of America’s most important journalism institutions, such as The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Newsweek, The Daily Beast and The Hill.

[1]https://justthenews.com/our-staff

b.) Solomon has received a number of awards for investigative journalism, among them the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalists' National Investigative Award, which he won together with CBS News' 60 Minutes for Evidence of Injustice; in 2002, the Associated Press's Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award for What The FBI Knew Before September 11, 2001, and the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award for his coverage of the war on terrorism; in 1992, the White House Correspondents' Association's Raymond Clapper Memorial Award (Second Place) for an investigative series on Ross Perot.

John Solomon (political commentator) EMDG332 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Solomon used to be a legitimate journalist, but he lost his way years ago. He is unreliable today. See his "reporting" on Ukraine. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. I disagree. Nonetheless, Tim Walz was DEMOTED, per Army regulations:

He may have been promoted to one rank, but that same authority which promotes also instructs when to demote. Regardless of the nature of the demotion, it still doesn't change the fact that he was. Period. Full Stop.

According to Army Regulation 600-8-19, a soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework results is automatically demoted. "(3) For conditional promotion to SGM with further appointment to CSM, enter the following: “The Soldier must complete the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Course as a condition of this promotion. Failure to meet the condition will cause demotion per AR 600–8–19.”," the regulation reads in para. 6–11. Promotion instruments c., (3.)

(Bold Underline Emphasis mine)

[2]https://www.moguard.ngb.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Human%20Resources%20PDFs/EPS/EPS%20Documents/AR%20600-8-19%20-%20Enlisted%20Promotions%20and%20Reductions.pdf?ver=m9swkoYxa883mvN9M-xdRg%3D%3D

EMDG332 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point you're trying to make, and the points made thus far are all variations of the same point. I'll approach this differently:

The official record of military service only cares exclusively about what happened, when it happened.

Walz says that upon retirement, he was a Cmd Sgt Major. The record reflects that.

Further, while the failure to complete requirements for promotion does result in a demotion, the military rarely uses "demotion" for non-punitive measures like this. I need to repeat this: demotion is punitive.

For Walz, the promotion is noted as "did not complete requirements." While you cite the appropriate guiding manual, you cite the incorrect passage. You want 1-35 "Temporary Promotions" and specifically a(14) [not (a)(14), but a(14)]. The regulation uses the term "demotion" colloquially; it does not imply, imbue, or convey an actual demotion.

The official language 1-35 a(14) demands in this instance is "Soldier received a temporary promotion as authorized by AR 600–8–19 and did not complete required level of training to qualify in the new rank and was, therefore, reduced to their former rank effective the date indicated in block 13j Effective Date of Pay Grade." This statement is marked on Walz DD-214 block 13j, "Effective Date of Pay Grade."

While the reduction in rank fits the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "demotion," it does not meet the definitions and classifications of the United States Department of Defense, otherwise "reduction in rank" would not be used. 69.136.232.212 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have conflated "any article on current events" with "verified sources." Wikipedia has guidelines on objectivity and tone, among other things. There is no doubt that Mr. Solomon exerts considerable effort for his job.

However, Mr. Solomon editorializes, uses his status as a journalist to make bad faith arguments and pointed partisan points favoring his ideological point-of-view. He may have been objective and a paragon of journalistic standards, but he's eschewed that for his current success.

The article you refer to explicitly states Solomon pushed unproven conspiracy theories. The article you wish to use for Walz is full of subjective anger, irrational logic (running for Congress is considered cowardly?), and is mired in the feelings of a person who wants to feel wounded and warps reality to fit their narrative.

Unless there is a more direct source that indicates that Walz ran for Congress because he didn't want to serve, all that exists is loosely-tied circumstantial evidence. That is hardly enough for the lofty complaint you wish to be posted to Walz' article. SinkingFeeling (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. What is your source for the "Walz DD214 block13j"?

I have yet to see authentic copies of any of his service records, except for an NGB Form 22a to correct the NGB Form 22 which he would have received upon retirement.

[29] EMDG332 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (4)

Rank: Master Sergeant

Add a dropdown menu for “Military Career” Include positions held and departments 47.215.187.83 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (5)

Change "Walz attained the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy."

To "Walz attained the conditional rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. According to Army Regulation 600-8-19, a soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework results is automatically demoted. "The Soldier must complete the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Course as a condition of this promotion. Failure to meet the condition will cause demotion per AR 600 – 8 – 19," the regulation reads.

EMDG332 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Justthenews.com is operated by John Solomon (political commentator), as unreliable a source as there is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I respectfully request reconsideration. Please see below.

1.) The source is reliable.

a.) John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist, author and digital media entrepreneur who serves as Chief Executive Officer and Editor in Chief of Just the News. Before founding Just the News, Solomon played key reporting and executive roles at some of America’s most important journalism institutions, such as The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Newsweek, The Daily Beast and The Hill.

[30]https://justthenews.com/our-staff

b.) Solomon has received a number of awards for investigative journalism, among them the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award and the Society of Professional Journalists' National Investigative Award, which he won together with CBS News' 60 Minutes for Evidence of Injustice; in 2002, the Associated Press's Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award for What The FBI Knew Before September 11, 2001, and the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award for his coverage of the war on terrorism; in 1992, the White House Correspondents' Association's Raymond Clapper Memorial Award (Second Place) for an investigative series on Ross Perot.

John Solomon (political commentator)

2.) Additional reliable sources provided as requested:

a.) According to Army Regulation 600-8-19, a soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework results is automatically demoted. "(3) For conditional promotion to SGM with further appointment to CSM, enter the following: “The Soldier must complete the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Course as a condition of this promotion. Failure to meet the condition will cause demotion per AR 600–8–19.”," the regulation reads in para. 6–11. Promotion instruments c., (3.)

[31]https://www.moguard.ngb.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Human%20Resources%20PDFs/EPS/EPS%20Documents/AR%20600-8-19%20-%20Enlisted%20Promotions%20and%20Reductions.pdf?ver=m9swkoYxa883mvN9M-xdRg%3D%3D

b.) The Minnesota National Guard is disputing Governor Tim Walz's military biography, saying that the Democratic vice presidential candidate did not hold the rank of command sergeant major at the time of his retirement.

Army Lieutenant Colonel Kristen Augé, the state public affairs officer for Minnesota National Guard, told Just the News on Wednesday that the governor did not retire as "Command Sergeant Major Walz" in 2005, as stated on Minnesota's official website, but as master sergeant "because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy." A soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework is automatically demoted, according to Army regulations.

[32]https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-disputes-tim-walzs-military-biography-1936038

c.) The Minnesota National Guard also confirmed that Walz was conditionally promoted to Command Sergeant Major in 2004, but, as stated above, never completed the required coursework. This is why he had to retire at the lower rank.

[33]https://sofrep.com/news/the-truth-about-governor-tim-walzs-military-service/

d.) EMDG332 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Just the News is asa reliable as any mainstream legacy site. SDW2001 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

False. Justthenews.com is the site John Solomon used to push lies about the Bidens and Ukraine. After he was dropped by The Hill. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Rank

Walz failed to complete the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. He failed to serve for two years following completion of the academy, which he dropped out of. He failed to serve two years after the conditional promotion to Command Sergeant Major. He failed to fulfill the full six years of the enlistment he signed on September 18th, 2001. He lost his conditional promotion because he dropped out of the Segeant Major academy so he retired as a Master Sergeant. 2600:1702:2410:57A0:AD29:1AC1:77F0:23D0 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the article. It points out that Walz retired, and discusses the rank change upon retirement. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think sooner or later this will need to be an FAQ on this page once sufficient sources appear that discuss his retirement rank. Acroterion (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (6)

Tim Walz’ military retirement paperwork states that he retired with the rank “E8 Master Sergeant.”

His master command rank was never achieved due to his failure to meet conditions of the conditional promition.

This information is publicly available from US government sources. 24.55.24.34 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See threads above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by former NCOs who served with Walz

Hello. Curious to hear thoughts about including the quotes from Walz's direct superior officer and the officer who replaced him at the Minnesota National Guard. These statements are from significant firsthand sources who were there at the time and yet the edit was reversed on grounds of, "inappropriate partisan attacks". Some of these quotes go back a few years. Would like to please hear more reasoning why or why not they should be included. Count3D (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I will modify the reply I left you on Reywas's talk page. Your edit is not neutral or balanced. The Western Journal is a POV outlet, as is "Alpha News". I merely focused on WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS in my edit summary when I reverted you without noting the others. This story is an attempt at swiftboating based on some sour grapes and does not capture the truth of the situation. This is a good example of why we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources over primary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You just mentioned something not being neutral or balanced and then you proceed to post a partisan opinion piece from Task and Force. Oh the irony. Exzachary (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I sourced the facts in the Task and Force piece. Facts are neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, if you want to introduce comments by those who served with Walz, you should include those that are positive along with those you cited. Perhaps you want to work that text out here, using WP:RS? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that explanation. If I'm reading correctly, swiftboating is "a political attack that is dishonest, personal, and unfair." Based on that article you linked, I can see how that may apply to Behrends comments given his well-documented Republican leanings. However, I do not see the same necessarily applying to Julin, which would be an unfair characterization on him, throwing his statements out with the bathwater. Count3D (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Was trying to apply to the above comment with my previous comment. Thank you for your thoughts and suggestion! Count3D (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

CNN should fall under neutral and balanced? Doug Julin, the retired Command Sergeant Major who was Walz's direct superior officer gave a recent CNN interview providing first-hand insight into the timeline for Walz's retirement. Yet this was removed, according to Wozal, because it was a "paid letter". I believe there may be some confusion here. Unless someone can please provide evidence that Doug Julin wrote a paid letter, I think this merits inclusion now given the credibility of the source. A statement from one of Walz minor military colleagues was already included in the same paragraph. Wozal recommended this be brought up on the talk page, which it has. Thoughts? Count3D (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

CNN is an acceptable source. But again, if you're going to introduce Julin's comment, then per WP:NPOV, you also need to point out that it's contradicted by someone else who served with Walz. Here's another CNN video, where a reporter reads a response from Joe Eustice, "'From what I know of the situation, they're lying,' speaking of those who've come out against Walz from their former battalion," starting ~2:16. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that breakdown. Makes sense. Count3D (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Awaiting additional source/confirmation on this but potentially interesting alleged post by another officer, (Walz former battalion commander?) one Lieutenant Colonel John Kolb, ok with his timing of retirement but critical of Walz usage of the “Command Sergeant Major" title. Count3D (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Propose to add a sentence to the end of the paragraph starting with "Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement". Don't want to wade too deep into the controversy, but it is unambiguous that he has referred to himself as a "retired Command Sergeant Major", which is technically incorrect. https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/tim-walz-military-record/ is the reference which includes two video clips of his explicit claim. My proposal would be to add a sentence saying "Walz on at least two occasions has referred to himself as a 'retired Command Sergeant Major'." A previous sentence asserting that it "was 'legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major'" is misleading because he did more than say that he served as one; he directly stated that he was a retired command sergeant major. This is purely factual and I have no interest in wading into the stolen valor discussion other than to present the unambiguous facts. Lauciusa (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

He was a CSM and not demoted. How his retirement benefits were calculated is trivia. Certainly not worthy of what will become a lengthy article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You may be correct. But that does not make the statement that he referred to himself as a "retired command sergeant major" and less or more true. You can argue that it is unimportant, but it is clearly no less important than the fact that the Harris website revised its statement, or that the public affairs officer specifically noted that he could say he served at that rank. Lauciusa (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Add a sentence to the end of the paragraph starting with "Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement". The added sentence would be "Walz on at least two occasions has referred to himself as a 'retired Command Sergeant Major'." ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/tim-walz-military-record/

As above, it is unambiguous that he has referred to himself as a "retired Command Sergeant Major", which is technically incorrect. The reference above includes two video clips of his explicit claim. A previous sentence asserting that it "was 'legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major'" is misleading because he did more than say that he served as one; he directly stated that he was a retired command sergeant major, so this provides a meaningful clarification. Lauciusa (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

He was given the rank of CSM, held it for eight months and retired as a CSM. That makes him a retired CSM. After retirement his retirement pay was based on the rank of SM as per the retirement pay rules. Of all that's going on in the world, hard to believe so much time is spent on this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It is abundantly clear that this is an ongoing and disputed discussion. This makes it thoroughly ineligible for the edit request process. —Sirdog (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

He didn't retire as a CSM, he retired as a MSG. He was frocked to CSM, it wasn't an official promotion. TheNathanMuir (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

References