Talk:Tim Walz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Military career

Military career misinformation

This article also incorrectly claims Walz served in the US Army instead of the National Guard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.102.179.251 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. I want to see that revised also. NG vs US Army? Big difference JHarris25 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is currently missing the stolen valor accusations and lists Waltz incorrect rank when he retired.

Please see the following RS' for reference: Newsweek - CBS - WaPo

Walz has been accused of misleading the American public about his military career with several important facts missing in this article, all of which is reflected in many RS coverage this article is missing.

Please add the following:

- His service concluded when he retired from his unit in the Minnesota National Guard right before they deployed to Iraq in 2005.

- Walz has also claimed he carried a gun "in war," despite never experiencing active combat.

- Walz retired as a master sergeant not a command sergeant major.

Explanatio on the 3rd addition request: His early retirement terminated the promotion, reducing his rank to master sergeant. He didn't complete that condition of doing two years after graduation, so he gets reduced to a master sergeant, and that's what he is right now, is a retired master sergeant.

There are more than enough RS covering this controversy. These RS even call it as such (CBS' article has a nice header called Controversy over a 2005 Iraq deployment. This proves this assertion is NPOV and not editorializing.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your comments were removed because a) they clearly represent a statement of your opinion, and b) the sources are recent and inconclusive, WP:RECENTISM. You gave the topic a "misinformation" label which reveals your underlying point of view, and would certainly not represent an improvement to the article being watched and edited by many experienced Wikipedians. Among reliable sources, there is no misinformation confirmed about his military career, and the so-called controversy in media appears to be a minority view. The edit request template is unnecessary in this section. Zefr (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why would you delete the edit template instead of replying to it as per rules? You seem intent in deleting instead of responding.

You stated:

"Among reliable sources, there is no misinformation confirmed about his military career..." yet CBS cas it controversy and, as of now, at least 10 RS are covering this one way or another.

You stated:

"the sources are recent and inconclusive..." yet MANY RS arw covering this amply. Given the fast paced natured of edits on this article your recentism call out doesnt apply else you should be deleting a lot of edits made in the last 24 hours for the same reason.

I can conclude you are not engaging in good faith and will ask of you to refraim from editing my posts/talk page/anything on me. Ask an uninvolved Administrator if you want that to happen.

68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Cant request an edit unless consensus is reached even though many RS have reported on this.

A question: how can we establish consensus if there are at least 6 active topics on this TP on the same issue? Honest question, since it seems some WP editors might have a vested interest in slowing down this process by disagreeing with facts as reported by RS in order to prevent consensus (not saying this is you, of course)

68.188.156.135 (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not an uncontroversial edit. Closing template for now. PianoDan (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It would indeed be helpful if IPs stop opening new sections with the same request. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Service of Walz

His Military Service needs to be more accurate, he never keep his rank for Command Sergeant Major because he did not finish, as a matter of fact he retired as an E-8 because he failed to go to combat, please update his bio per this source: https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/08/09/tim-walz-military-record-did-he-serve/ 2601:601:512:639D:4470:B7A9:DA2A:CE17 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This page is not a forum. What wording in the current article is inadequate? What wording would be an improvement? Why? What reliable source would be used? Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq He never served in Afghanistan. Having that in his military history is a lie. 100.1.191.7 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The article already states "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." This issue has already been discussed extensively above. Your view has already been addressed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-neutral and other wording

Since NPOV is a requirement in Wiki articles, I believe the following statement needs to be changed in the section on Walz' military service. Currently it reads, "During his political career, Republicans, notably rival Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance, have used the timing of his military retirement as a smear campaign that has been compared to swiftboating."

My proposed wording is: Since he became the vice-presidential nominee, Walz has been the subject of what is referred to as swiftboating in reference to the timing of his military retirement.

Something else in the same section that I feel is poorly worded and not accurately represented: "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..."

My proposed wording is: After being promoted on contingency to Command Sergeant Major several months before his retirement, Walz' final rank was Master Sergeant. The reduction in rank occurred due to Walz not completing the required coursework at the Army's Sergeants Major Academy by the time he separated from his service in May 2005.

A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the second part but with first part I’m concerned that lots of our younger readers will not know what “swiftboating” is and that it is actually a smear campaign tactic. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Even so, there has to be a NPOV way to word it so both swiftboating is included but does not sound accusatory. We aren't supposed to be writing anything that will sway voters one direction or another. As it stands, what's there seems pretty partisan in both tone and inference. It also essentially makes a case against Vance, and that's not our job. How do you propose we keep the meaning of "swiftboating" clear, without undue weight and the partisan-laced pejorative? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, there's some related discussion elsewhere on the page [1]. I continue to think that the current wording isn't NPOV, but I couldn't get the other editors to work on it with me, and two attempts (one by me, one by someone else) to make it more neutral were reverted. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Promoted on contingency" isn't a thing, and sounds like you're talking about a battlefield promotion during a contingency operation. GMG^talk 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

GMG, he was promoted with an understanding that in order to retain the rank there was a contingency in place: go to the SMA and finish or the rank will be reduced back to MS. Those are the facts. How would you word it better so it's clear there was both a contingency and a reduction rank because the terms and commitment were not completed? When I read what's there now, the fact(s) seem(s) softened to where the truth is obscured. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's how everyone was promoted. I've been promoted that way twice. It wasn't a special kind of promotion. It was just the way promotions were done. I've explained this already here like three or four times. GMG^talk 15:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The point isn't that it happens that way in the Army, the point is that he didn't follow through with the contingency he agreed and committed to. It's the point because he mislead at the very least and lied at the very worst about his retiring rank. As a veteran, you have to know what that means to most veterans (even if you don't feel the same way they do). He is a political figure. Someone who is currently in a high position of power. He's now asking people to vote for him, to be sworn into a position that puts him a breath away from the most powerful position on earth. People deserve the facts, not opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be facts, not editor opinion. It doesn't matter what your personal experience and knowledge is. It matters only what the facts are and how they are presented here. If they are presented in a manner that resembles spin from either political party, then that needs to be rectified to become NPOV and the content wording to be reliably sourced from an unbiased perspective. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a political commitment. I have a commitment to being a giant nerd. I'm the kindof guy who joins the Army to do paperwork. There is no such thing as a contingency promotion. It's not a thing. GMG^talk 16:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pro nerdiness. And I don't care if "contingency promotion" isn't in the improved, neutral, non-biased wording. Based on that, my point remains and needs a solution so we can rectify the POV that's present in the article on this issue. As I said above, it matters only what the facts are and how they are presented here. If they are presented in a manner that resembles spin from either political party, and I believe at this time the wording is exactly that, then it needs to be rectified to become NPOV and the content wording to be reliably sourced from an unbiased perspective. Do you have a solution/wording proposal to make that happen? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not inventing something called a contingency promotion. GMG^talk 18:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point was already made and acknowledged. If you have no suggestions, please just say that instead of playing games and wasting the time of others. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to find a wording you like. GMG^talk 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Being promoted happens when there is an order published, which looks like a piece of paper someone made with a typewriter. It has a unique identifier at the top, called an order number and it's signed by someone authorized to issue those orders, generally by either rank, position, or both. This is a very basic part of Army administration. When you have orders promoting you, then you are promoted. Do we really need to carry this on in 15 other threads by people who obviously don't know how Army werk? GMG^talk 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"It's not my job to find a wording you like." GMG, I asked if you had any suggestions, I didn't say "find wording I like". You haven't given anything encyclopedic, anything that can be put into the article. You've only offered your opinion and your personal commentary. You know how it works, how articles are written, but you're not helping with moving forward. Continuing this with you is now certainly a waste of time.

"Do we really need to carry this on in 15 other threads by people who obviously don't know how Army werk?" GMG, no one needs to know how the Army works in order to find appropriate sourcing that gives us the basis for content in this, or any Army-related BLP. Clearly, you're not willing to help constructively, which is fine, but why keep wasting our time and Wikipedia space with no meaningful suggestions at all by making it all about you and what you know? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in this entire talk page have you offered a single source? GMG^talk 23:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked you repeatedly for suggestions on better wording to convey the scenario accurately and that hasn't happened. I don't know what me providing sources has to do with asking you to help change the wording to be accurate. Unless you're going to do that in your reply, I have nothing more to say to you on this subject. Cheers, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator and am monitoring this page after seeing a request that it be semi-protected. Above I asked "What do reliable sources say?" because an article should be written as a summary of the information in such sources. Asking for suggestions on better wording without a source is the wrong approach. Please provide sources and discuss them, or move on to another topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't be moving on because I've done nothing disruptive. Asking for suggestions from others on how to better word something is never the wrong approach. Your demand that I leave is noted but ignored. Flag me and start watching me now if you must, I really don't care. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Beating a WP:DEADHORSE is disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done that. I asked someone to turn their nonsense replies into something constructive, helpful, productive. They refused. THAT refusal followed by repeated nonsense commentary is disruption. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, stick it to me. Put me in my place. But you're the one arguing for a change in wording, and for that you need sources. GMG^talk 17:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Stolen Valor

Many from his own unit claimed he stole valor and deserted them, but because none of the sources Wikipedia claims are reliable will factually write about it they are allowed to keep that information off of his Wikipedia page. Dirty tricks Wikipedia has used for quite awhile. WhowinsIwins (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

He's a political figure. Nobody is going to have an unbiased opinion on the subject. To make a completely non-political comparison, consider Star Trek. Commander William Riker was temporarily promoted to Captain when he assumed command of the Enterprise during the Borg attack. After the incident was over, his rank reverted to Commander. Suppose that he had retired from Starfleet the next day. Would it be appropriate for him to refer to himself as Captain? Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly isn't "stolen valor" and no unbiased encyclopedia should refer to it as such. I think the infobox should be changed to actively reflect his retirement rank. The text of the article (as of the moment I am writing) adequately discusses the issue and without using derogatory language like "stolen valor". --B (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But Riker was actually promoted to Captain to command the Titan. GMG^talk 10:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The military controversies are certainly an issue - (BLP violation removed), but per Wikipedia policy, unless an approved source covers it, the controversy cannot be reported i.e. it must be treated as if it does not exist. IF there is a Vance-Walz debate then the issue may be referenced. Assuming there is an accessible copy of the broadcast e.g. YouTube, that should suffice for the purposes of acknowledging the controversy, though not addressing the validity of it - that would require admission by the NYT, WaPo, Biden-Harris White House, or other such approved source. To date Walz has attacked his critics and declared he is proud of his service as if the alleged problem is his service rather than specific discrete elements of it. 人族 (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo Note the "Suppose that he had retired from Starfleet the next day." --B (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Riker never retired. He was always there to answer the call. (I'm just being silly obviously.) GMG^talk 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

Please add vital information about Tim Walz military career. While h was promoted to command master sergeant, he did not retain that rank and retired as a master sergeant as he failed to complete the requirements to become an actual command master sergeant.

"Walz attained the rank of command sergeant major and served in that role but retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes due to not completing additional coursework" is much more truthful than simply saying he reached the CSM rank. He did not follow up and do the required courses to keep the rank. TazTruth (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. _ZZ^Z'S 22:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The page already says:

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. A public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard in 2018 said it was "legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major", while Walz's former battalion commander, John Kolb, described his usage of the title as "frocking". A reference to Walz on his official campaign website as a "retired command sergeant major" was later updated to read he "once served at the command sergeant major rank".

FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz was a Master Sergeant (one less Stripe than Sgt. Maj.)

Minn. Nat. Guard fellow Soldiers report that Tim Walz was not an E-9, he was/is an E-8. Rockin1time (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed repeatedly. Please see the ongoing discussion above EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it, and I also see 'Wikipedia's' overt bias. It should have been changed to Master Sergeant, yet it has not. The argument that he did not complete Sergeants Major Academy, means he did not Retire 'in' the E-9 rank. Therefore, he is an E-8, 'clear as day!.' 96.19.123.82 (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I am a prior Air Force, active duty, Captain - of over a decade of Service (higher than an E-9), so 'Wikipedia' should not so quickly discount my correction/suggestion. 96.19.123.82 (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

Remove that he deployed to Afghanistan under operation enduring freedom. He never did that check his DD214. 2600:8800:8901:4300:A8EB:2AD7:8EF6:C238 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The article does not assert that he deployed to Afghanistan. Kablammo (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2024 (2)

Greetings. Please update Gov. Tim Walz's main page. He is not an Afghanistan War veteran and never deployed to Afghanistan. The insignificant link to Operation Enduring Freedom has nothing to do with him deploying to or serving in Afghanistan. One cannot be an Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam War veteran unless they actually physically went and served there. Thanks!! ScottAvant (talk) 15:04, 21 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. The article doesn't say that he's an Afghanistan War veteran, so I can't tell what you want done here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The infobox has "Battles/wars War in Afghanistan". This may be a technical thing because of the "Operation Enduring Freedom" just below, but it looks odd if he never was in Afghanistan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done that is a fair point. i've removed it down to just Operation Enduring Freedom. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Veterans who served and supported the military stateside during wars are still considered to be veterans of those wars. [2] Kablammo (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC) One does not have to be present on the battlefield to be a veteran of the war. Kablammo (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Never was a Command Sergeant Major. Was not a Sergeant Major, he was a Master Sergeant. 2603:6080:5202:E78A:44F9:F10B:337E:E669 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

He was in fact a Command Sergeant Major before he retired at the rank of Master Sergeant. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz retired before doing the specific program to become Command Sergeant Major. So he did not retire with that rank. Michael Warder (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Also see [https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/national-day-deployed-honoring-americas-deployed-servicemembers#:~:text=More%20Americans%20deployed%20to%20combat,in%20the%20US%20Armed%20Forces.https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/national-day-deployed-honoring-americas-deployed-servicemembers#:~:text=More%20Americans%20deployed%20to%20combat,in%20the%20US%20Armed%20Forces.

[3]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

Walz was not a command Sergeant major. He was a master Sergeant 24.245.6.56 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the many other sections on the talk page that address this EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024 (2)

Mr Walz didn't attain, nor did he retire a Command Sgt Mjr (CSM). 72.48.36.109 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Joining National Guard

Chat GPT reports Governor Walz joined the National Guard AFTER graduating from Chadron State College in 1989, not after graduating from High School. 69.40.64.138 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT is incorrect as many, many other Reliable Sources document. Rillian (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

conflicting info re: the timing of submission of retirement papers

The article currently says "In late 2004, Walz submitted his retirement papers," sourcing it to PolitiFact, which in turn sources it to Fox News. The citation notes that Fox is the source. The Fox News article says "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." However, this NYT article says "It is unknown when he submitted his retirement paperwork, the Minnesota National Guard said, noting that the process varies but approval can take 30 to 120 days." So there's a conflict in what Fox and the NYT say the Minnesota National Guard told them. There was some earlier Talk page discussion of whether to include any info in the article about when he submitted his retirement paperwork (e.g., here). Since we now have conflicting reports, there's a question of whether we note that there's conflicting info, leaving the PolitiFact citation and adding the NYT citation, or if we instead omit any statement about when he submitted his retirement papers. Does anyone have an opinion about this? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it helps, but Fox News isn't reliable for politics per Wikipedia:FOXNEWSPOLITICS...I'd stick to NYT as a more reliable source on political subjects. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed... DN (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fox's unreliability for political news was discussed in the archived Talk page discussion that I linked to. I don't think it makes sense to remove that footnote text about Fox, as PolitiFact is quite clear that they're only repeating Fox's claim. What I'm questioning is whether the current article text, "In late 2004, Walz submitted his retirement papers," should simply be removed, or if it should instead be replaced with something about there being conflicting reporting on this. Or perhaps you're raising another possibility: replacing it with a statement that the MN National Guard doesn't know when he submitted his paperwork. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely a better source can be found, that is, if there isn't consensus for removal. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The Minnesota National Guard of course knows when he submitted his paperwork, how could they not? The Guard may not have an issued an official statement yet confirming the date, but that date exists and it is prior to Walz' retirement in May 2005. With reliable sources that state "Five to seven months before retirement", that places it in late 2004. Rillian (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't have reliable sources independently saying "Five to seven months before retirement." We have Fox News (generally not a reliable source for political news) saying that this is what the MN Guard told them, and then a few reliable sources repeating it but sourcing it to Fox News (e.g., PolitiFact: "He had submitted retirement paperwork five to seven months beforehand, Fox News reported, citing the Minnesota National Guard," PBS: "He had submitted retirement paperwork five to seven months beforehand, Fox News reported, citing the Minnesota National Guard"), which means that those reliable sources haven't independently verified it with the Guard. And we have another reliable source, the NYT, saying that the Guard told them that it didn't know. So we have conflicting information. And the question is: how do we deal with the conflicting information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops, just noticed that PBS was just quoting PolitiFact, so ignore that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

"In 1989, he earned the title of Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year.[40][41]"

This is false. This was a simple annual breakfast meeting in which 50 or more service members of all National Guard branches were honored. Walz was NOT singled out for an award. 2601:447:C983:6DA0:38AA:C981:2F07:EE91 (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Citation 40: "He was named Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year in 1989." – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Not The Highest Ranking Enlisted Congressperson

“Walz became the highest-ranking retired enlisted soldier ever to serve in Congress” … This needs to be changed given that Gov. Walz retired at the pay grade of E-8 and Rep. Tony Gonzales retired at the pay grade of E-9 (per an August 8, 2024 tweet by Rep. Gonzales reprinted by Politico).

Rep. Gonzales’ rank of master chief is also printed in a December 8, 2022 Newsweek article. https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-texas-rep-tony-gonzales-seeks-co-chair-bipartisan-veteran-caucus-1765486 66.214.205.19 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

COORECTION: I now realize that Rep. Gonzales is not a retired soldier as he retired from the navy. However, I think a change might still be needed. All three sources of attribution list Gov. Walz as either a “retired command sergeant major” or having “retired honorably in 2005 as the top enlisted soldier for 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment”. Walz would not have been the top enlisted soldier in that battalion when he retired - that position would have been held by CSM Thomas Behrends as Walz was reduced to the rank of MSG one day before retirement. So this begs a question for which I do not have an answer … has another retired army E-8 ever served in congress? 66.214.205.19 (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

He is a sargent major, not a command Sargent major. This needs to be changed 108.45.81.235 (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy?

Earlier this month, a news article of Tim Walz having to get his stomach pumped after drinking horse s*men. It was eventually fact checked and proven to possibly be a hoax. It earned significant media attention and sparked notable discussion on social media. These are the same reasons as to why the couch hoax was added to JD Vance's Wikipedia page. (See second paragraph) Therefore, I feel it would be both worthy and fair to add the situation in the article, since it was a popular discussion point eventually proved a hoax. CavDan24 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I never heard of this, plus I think it's a bit different than JD and the couch because that one became a bit more talked about and more mainstream with Walz, Stephen Colbert, JB Pritzker and other Democrats have mentioned/used the hoax Source. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I hadn't heard about the JD vance couch thing until I read about it on Wiki. Sword cuts both ways. (nor had I heard about the horse semen thing. The internet is gross, y'all). Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be included. Our publication of scurrilous gossip will only encourage others to convert this site into a scandal sheet for attacks. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"sparked notable discussion on social media" About the dangers of drinking semen? Dimadick (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shitposts in biographies. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure the famously apolitical Wikipedian masses, bastions of impartiality, will be fair and measured, studiously adhering to BLP and other guidelines, so long as a Democrat's article comes out looking better than a Republican's (at least until the election is over). --Animalparty! (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. This should not be included in the article nor should the hoax about Vance. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose, as it appears to be WP:RECENT DN (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, for obvious reasons. WP:NOTEVERYTHING as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, so this should too, is not a solid argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No. WP:OTHERSTUFF not a reason to add nonsense to this article. If you feel edits are needed to the Vance article, please take action there or discuss it on the Vance Talk page. Rillian (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Provide significant reliable source coverage that meets the burden of WP:DUE. Otherwise, it's simply too fringe to merit inclusion. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Possibly"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s what the fact-checking source I included said, so I went with it. CavDan24 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Your fact-checking source does not appear to say that anywhere.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not an argument for including bullshit rumours in a BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete both hoaxes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In no way do we need to every AI-generated partisan hoax. Neither should be present here. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

Walz was not a part of any deployment operations in Iraq. His unit deployed, he did not. Zero deployment medals as shown.

Please remove the section with his Enduring Freedom reference that he wasn’t a part of. 2605:59C8:6016:2410:40A6:D5A0:AEA9:AF54 (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Because you said so? That's not how Wikipedia works. Provide sources for your claims. I thought I read that his unit was in Italy supporting the Air Force as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.War (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024 (2)

Rank listed as command sergeant major under section military service, rank. Correct rank is master sergeant 138.75.121.132 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done -- I think you'll find that most editors are content to decline requests like this, when it's clear that you haven't bothered to consider discussion above where the same idea has been proposed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024 (3)

Request edit Military Rank from Command Sergeant Major to Rank at Retirement Master Sergeant 2601:348:401:7B70:4C69:E7F:39C0:B519 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Request you read this talk page and its archives for the previous discussions on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Pronounciation of his name

Why does the IPA transcription of his surname, Walz, show the vowel as "ɔː"? This sound simply does not exist in most American English dialects (the vast majority), and as this article is about an American, this should be fixed. Virtually no Americans use this vowel "ɔ"! It appears that British imperialism has never stopped LOL! As you see from this source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/wall a far more accurate transcription for American English of the vowel in "Walz" is "ɑː." 68.234.168.28 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

Please update the rank photo, currently Command Sargent Major, to the rank he retired: Master Sargent. BravoRomeo1 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed EXTENSIVELY already. PianoDan (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

New infobox photo

Propose updating infobox photo to

Superb Owl (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The current infobox image is better in quality and shows him as the VP Dem nominee too so it's slightly bit more to date. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Accomplishments List

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 [4]. - Free college for all students with household incomes under $80,000 [5]. - Set the stage for implementing a health care public option to compete with private insurance [6]. - A $1 billion investment in affordable housing, along with landmark tenants' rights protections [7]. - A state board to set minimum workplace standards for the nursing home sector [8]. - In addition to the noncompete clause ban, a ban on captive anti-union meetings and cutting-edge protections for Amazon and meatpacking plant workers [9]. - Banning health care providers from refusing to treat patients with medical debt [10].

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 [11]. - 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 [12].

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 [13]. 2601:600:9080:62D0:D1EF:E163:96CE:A896 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

Change Tim Walz’s military rank to Master Sergeant. His current rank is incorrect.

https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz 2A02:1406:6B:2366:49FE:A7ED:C73E:E0EF (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source is an ad. Besides, this has been discussed over and over. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done: Please read this talk page and its archives for the previous discussions on this. Rillian (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"Though he was serving as 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 before his retirement. "

This is incorrect, it was not done for Benefit purposes, it was done because he did not complete the SMA as he was required per his counseling. Stating "it was for benefit purposes" paints a picture that this was voluntary, when it was ordered he was no longer allowed to be a CSM. The fact is he was demoted (per army regulations) for not following through with his counseling, that is a negative affect on him.

This type of verbiage continues to show the propaganda that Wikipedia creates with biasness towards Political figures.

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

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/08/natl-guard-confirms-harris-vp-was-demoted-after-retiring-before-iraq-deployment/

Army Regulations that back this up: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105074813/https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36067-AR_600-8-19-000-WEB-1.pdf TheNathanMuir (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The first cite is not a reliable source. The second provides the quote: “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.” The third, is a primary source being used by you for original research. The statement by you This type of verbiage continues to show the propaganda that Wikipedia creates with biasness towards Political figures. is a violation of AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very proficient at Wikipedia editing, but it seems like you're responding to this request in bad faith. Three sources that all say the same thing that's been confirmed by Walz's former unit in the Minnesota National Guard. He did not retain the rank of CSM, but instead left the service at the rank of MSG. This is not disputed even by sources that frame Walz in a positive light.

This article currently gives his rank as Command Sergeant Major, and that is objectively false. I dont see any discussions on here other than people bringing this up and getting shot down. That is unacceptable. Ozone742 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Walz held the rank of Command Sergeant Major. This has been discussed on this talk page. Search the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Conditionally holding a rank means you need to uphold the conditions to retain it. Walz did not meet those conditions. I don't care if you and others talked about this to death. Reality is that the highest rank attained was Master Sergeant. Ozone742 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What I wrote is verifiable and the truth. Please stop wasting people's time. Ozone742 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The highest rank he attained was clearly Command Sergeant Major, though he retired at Master Sergeant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not at all clear. He held the rank of CSM conditionally, and he failed to uphold those conditions. My edit is accurate, easily understood, and relevant. Why are you so interested in removing this important clarification? Ozone742 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite right -- he reverted to an E8 before he retired. See BBC News "Fact-Check" on the issue. This is not a controversial statement and he never completed the requirements to hold the rank he has claimed and which is incorrectly reflected in this Wikipedia article. He was in an acting role and would have made it if he stayed and completed the requirements.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze5gzr97ewo DiacriticalOne (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

He did reach the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but he officially retired one rank below as a master sergeant. And the infobox lists the highest rank attained. The prose describes the situation in detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

All verifiable sources say he only held the position of CSM. The official record from the National Guard states that he failed to complete the coursework necessary for the promotion. Hence why he was reduced in rank. Ergo, he did not fully attain the rank of CSM. Ozone742 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the rank of a military individual and a position that they may. MSgt Walz served as an acting command position but did so as a MSgt. Please correct your error as all military personnel know this error. I have been a donor to your Wikipedia and will be looking for your correction asap. 2601:3C8:C081:7BC0:0:0:0:95B (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This section is almost a month old and has run beyond its course. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Walz's retired military rank

A review of the NGB 22 issued by the National Guard Bureau reveals that Timothy Walz was reduced from SGM(E9) to MSG(E8) for non-completion of his Service Contract/failure to meet standards.

Legally, and in accordance with military rules and regulations, he is a retired Master Sergeant. 2601:6C1:4000:69A0:AD78:B117:44E4:133E (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep. And... the article says exactly that EvergreenFir (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't. That's the issue here. Ozone742 (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unclear on Template:Infobox officeholder whether |rank= should be the highest or the current rank. For most, they are usually the same so I'm not sure if this has ever been addressed before. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

According to someone in the talk page for infoboxes, they used to have some guidelines for these cases, but it was removed a while ago. Not sure why. Strange given that there's plenty of articles that go off the reduced rank. Ozone742 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"rank – optional – the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service?" [14] The two "precedents" you provided were for punishment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reduction in rank occured. Thank you for proving my point again. Ozone742 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It was not punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service. If voluntary, every person in the military that retired would have to be listed as private. You have made 25 posts on this without gaining consensus or adding new info. At some point, you are just wasting editor time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you think "voluntary reduction in rank" means. Nobody who just finishes their contract normally is dropped to E-1 Private because they actually held the rank they earned. Walz was reduced to E-8 Master Sergeant because he failed to fulfill qualifications for E-9 Command Sergeant Major. You're making a false comparison here. And using guidelines from outside of English Wikipedia. Ozone742 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Also why are you linking to a different Wikipedia to try to prove your point? The English Wikipedia doesn't include this distinction. Although it probably should have something akin to this. Ozone742 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Try this link: [15] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We've been over this before. That page makes no mention of reduction in rank. If you're just going to keep this conversation moving in circles, then I see no reason to continue talking to you. Ozone742 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does say the highest rank. And yes you are correct that this keeps going in circles as you keep claiming he didn't have the rank that he had and yes there is no reason to continue this since you keep claiming it doesn't say what it says. So, this is my last response. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for lying again. Have a nice day. Ozone742 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

Governer Walz could not have participated in the Korean War, which took place from 1950-1953. He wasn't born till 1964. This incorrectly is stated in his Early Life and Education section. 32.221.181.109 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that: His father, James Frederick Walz, was a teacher and school superintendent who served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War - MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

And that's what I get for not reading it correctly. Apologies. 32.221.181.109 (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024

Tim Walz military rank was NOT Command Sergeant Major (CSM) as he NEVER met the requirements of that rank. His rank was Master Sergeant (MSG). 2601:B051:1AD:4000:B523:38C6:5379:5A47 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - see discussions further up this page. - MrOllie (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024 (2)

The rank for Mr. Walz needs to be changed to Master Sargeant.

The section for battles/wars needs to be removed as he necessary deployed to a combat zone. His only deployment was to Italy. 2601:154:C200:51B0:8D70:C7A3:1089:8745 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - See discussions further up this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2024 (3)

Change rank from "Command Sergeant Major" to "Master Sergeant".

"'I’m a retired command sergeant major,' Walz said in 2006 as he campaigned to unseat the six-term Republican in Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District. That declaration was not true. Walz served briefly as a command sergeant major, but that was not the rank he held at retirement. That distinction -– serving as a command sergeant major, but not retiring in that position –- may seem minor to civilians. To those in uniform, it is not." https://apnews.com/article/walz-military-record-national-guard-harris-minnesota-231959aa7440571ddea1304bd7598a19

"CBS News review of Walz's military record and statements from the Minnesota Army National Guard show Walz achieved the rank of command sergeant major but was reduced in rank to master sergeant after retirement since he had not completed coursework for the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-walz-military-record/

"Nonetheless, the campaign has been scrubbing references to Walz as a retired command sergeant major, replacing them with phrases indicating he served at that rank but did not retire with it." -https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/16/walz-military-record-service

"Minnesota National Guard officials have said that Walz retired before completing coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, along with other requirements associated with his promotion." https://apnews.com/article/walz-national-guard-military-ae43d684bf1319e535f9f620552155d7

"Although Walz had been promoted in 2004 to command sergeant major, he retired in 2005 as a master sergeant, one rank below command sergeant major, “for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy,” Augé said." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-attacks-on-walzs-military-record-by-vance-and-other-republicans TheGuOneGill (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC) — TheGuOneGill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Not done: Opening new sections is unhelpful. Engage in the open discussion above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2024

He is a master sergeant. 2600:1014:A111:5FC7:111A:C836:C8C2:CE7F (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2024

Walz’ retired as a master sergeant not a CSM 172.223.26.111 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

Tim Walz was a Master Sergeant (E-8) at time of retirement due to failure to complete his final enlistment or professional military education prior to retirement. 2603:8001:84F0:97B0:7CA6:ABF6:97BA:4D8F (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion in many of the earlier sections on this talk page and its archives. Skynxnex (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2024

Tim walz rank is wrong as we is a sergeant major and not a command Sargent major 2601:603:1400:8770:1ACA:4578:D674:B279 (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

In block towards top lists his final permanent rank still as Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and is incorrect. Was a Master Sergeant (E-8) and explanation is in military service paragraph. 201 file ERB and OMPF reflect the same per NPRC. 72.133.241.162 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See earlier discussions on this page and in the archives. Skynxnex (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

I was in the process of adding a visual of the governor's medal rack from his military service in a module at the bottom of the info box. but I was interrupted just before 10:30pm central time when the page locked.

if it's easier for one of the already conformed users to insert this, the file is File:TimWalzServiceAwardsRack.png Cappyishappy (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

National Guard service

The third paragraph of "Early life and education" says he served in the Texas and Arkansas National Guard. The infobox says Nebraska and Minnesota. Which is it? 67.231.67.253 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Service Rank

Since a number of people seem keen on removing important clarification regarding Walz's rank while in the Army National Guard, and that I've been threatened with being sanctioned for my stance, I feel it's necessary to talk about this.

My stance is simple. Walz did not fully attain the rank of CSM due to him failing to meet the conditions he agreed to when accepting said promotion. Ergo, his infobox should reflect that. Especially since this is a relevant topic.

Feel free to actually explain how I'm wrong here beyond just saying "It's settled." Ozone742 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea but I can say that people should not be exchanging opinions. Instead, exchange what reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

OP was blocked for edit warring. To be clear, the infobox lists the highest rank attained, as it does for all biographies, while the prose in Tim Walz#Military service describes the situation in more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

He never attained the rank in the article. He was in an acting role pending completion of the requirements, which he never did. The infobox is incorrect.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze5gzr97ewo DiacriticalOne (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

He did reach the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but he officially retired one rank below as a master sergeant. And the infobox lists the highest rank attained. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

One cannot attain the rank without completing the required coursework. He was never anything more than an acting CSM. He had the position pending his completion of the requirements. That’s not an attack on him or his service, that’s just the way it works. 96.8.130.46 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. I haven't found a single source that claims Walz ever fully attained the rank of CSM. If anyone has such a source, I'd be glad to see it. Ozone742 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Alleged edit warring. In which you participated.

Anyway, the infobox doesn't always go off the highest rank attained by a servicemember. For example, Bowe Bergdahl's rank is listed as Private, but clarified that he held the rank of Sergeant previously. Or Ronny Jackson, who was a Rear Admiral, but recieved a retroactive demotion to Captain. And his infobox labels him as such.

So far, I haven't seen any verifiable source that claims Walz attained the rank of CSM, and we know for a fact that he officially retired at the rank of E-8 MSG. So, to be consistent with other articles and to be objectively correct, his infobox should reflect his rank of MSG. Ozone742 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To be consistent, I suppose we should change the other articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That would fix the issue of inconsistency, but at the expense of accuracy. Walz didn't complete the requirements needed for his promotion, so labeling him a CSM is misleading.

I doubt anyone would be on board with listing someone like Bergdahl as a Sergeant either. Ozone742 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The standard here is the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service). Bergdahl was punished. Retirement is not a voluntary reduction in rank, otherwise there would be no rank. How retirement pay is calculated is a different matter.[16] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

His reduction in rank wasn't a result of his retirement. It was because he failed to fulfill the requirements to warrant holding the rank of CSM. This isn't just some issue over retirement pay.

Beyond that, I haven't seen anything from Wikipedia guidelines that claims what you're saying. Ozone742 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I linked to what I am saying. And we have heard your opinion many times now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing on that page that says what you claimed. Nothing clarifying what to do in cases of demotion or reduction in rank. Please be more honest about this kind of stuff moving forward.

We've also heard your case many times now too, and it still doesn't make sense.ill ask again, if you have any verifiable evidence that Walz didn't recieve a reduction in rank for failing to meet the requirements for the rank of CSM, then you'd have a case. Im betting no such evidence exists. Otherwise it probably would've come out by now. Ozone742 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The instructions for rank in an infobox can be found at Template:Infobox_military_person/doc. To quote: rank – the highest rank achieved by the person. He was promoted to a Command Sergeant Major, per the citations already present in the article. The way the regulations in question work is that you get the promotion, and then you 'revert' to the previous rank if you don't meet the requirements at the end of the given time period. For many people, this is because they get promoted while on deployment and it could be months or years before they can attend in-person courses. But those folks absolutely do hold the rank in the meantime. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That isn't what's in question here. The fact of the matter is that Walz did officially hold the rank of CSM, but since he didn't fulfill the requirements for that promotion, he didn't retain that rank. That's what we're talking about.

I read that section for the template. It makes no mention of what to do in cases of reduction in rank despite what the other commenter claimed. In other words, that entire page is of no use here. Ozone742 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

'the highest rank achieved by the person' means exactly what it says and clearly does address this situation. In cases of a reduction, we still list the 'highest' rank. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Many Wikipedia articles do not just use the highest rank attained if the person was reduced in rank. We've been over this already. And, as already established, the matter of whether or not Walz actually attained the rank of CSM is questionable since the National Guard states that he failed to meet the requirements upon retirement. Ozone742 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You may have raised this point before, but it remains unconvincing. The problem with holding up other Wikipedia articles is that you cannot establish which usage is incorrect - your examples could well be the ones that need fixing. whether or not Walz actually attained the rank of CSM is questionable you're welcome to question it all you like, but Wikipedia will follow the cited sources and not your questions. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont care if you find it unconvincing. The fact of the matter is that you and others have claimed that Wikipedia always uses the highest rank attained, and that is objectively false. To say that we should just change all the other articles that use the most current rank in cases of reduction is problematic because that raises an issue of accuracy and misinformation. The cited sources literally say that Walz failed to fulfill the necessary qualifications to hold the rank of CSM. I dont know why this is so hard for certain people to grasp. Ozone742 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It is hard for certain people to grasp because reading the citations does not match your claimed summary of their content. Similarly, we believe what the infobox instructions plainly say. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

So none of the cited sources that have been provided on here, from verifiable sources according to Wikipedia, state that Walz failed to complete the necessary coursework to retain the rank of CSM? Because last I checked, that's what they say. From the National Guard itself no less. The point about the infobox seems to be moot. The page about infobox information for servicemembers doesn't address cases of reduction in rank, and precedent is that the reduced rank is what's used in the infobox. Ozone742 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We care that they say he attained the rank. We do not conduct WP:OR to try to undercut the plain language of the sources. The page about infobox information for servicemembers doesn't address cases of reduction in rank - repeating that over and over will not make it more true or more convincing. Since we are repeating ourselves, it seems useful discussion is at an end for the moment. I won't be replying here again unless something new comes up. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. I'm not going to continuing talking about this with someone acting in bad faith. If you choose to not read the sources on this matter and actually look at the page about infoboxes for servicemembers, that's on you. Ozone742 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administrator watching this contentious topic. As I posted at the top of the section, do not exchange opinions. Instead, post what reliable sources say. For example, post "[link to reliable source] says Walz had rank xxx". Or, post "[link to guideline] says xxx should be displayed as the rank". Anything else is off topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's already been done. At this point, we need engagement with the material from those sources. Ozone742 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Was acting command Sergeant major, did not have the courses to fully assume that position. Quit with rank of sergeant major prior to deployment of his unit. 2001:1970:5042:7700:50F7:CC03:C783:49E6 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Acting rank" isn't really a thing. Rank is rank. Your role is determined by 1) rank, and 2) position. Specialists can be acting squad leaders (a position normally occupied by an NCO). Lieutenants can be acting company commanders. It doesn't change their rank. It doesn't change what they wear on their chest. It's a change in position only. GMG^talk 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Acting Rank" is very much a thing but application of the term doesn't apply for the purposes of an encyclopedia article infobox. And you are conflating rank and appointment while accusing others of the same. Mostly "acting rank" permits someone unqualified (with regards to time in rank and required courses) to act in an appointment that requires a soldier of the requisite rank. There are implications for pay, etc. that again, really don't matter for this infobox.198.161.4.108 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've said this a zillion times. The authoritative source is AR 600-8-19. Like pretty much all Army Regulations it's available online. The thing that gives you the rank is promotion orders. The thing that takes it away is reduction orders. Between the two, you held that rank. You didn't kinda sorta hold it. You didn't hold it "unofficially", whatever that's supposed to mean. The only thing in the military that approaches an "unofficial rank" is a brevet which is purely symbolic and honorific and confers no actual change in authority or station. This fell out of use in the US military entirely some time ago, which is probably why most people have never heard of it. GMG^talk 11:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that he officially held the rank of CSM, but that it was on a conditional basis. He failed to uphold those conditions, and so his rank was reduced to E-8 MSG. Ozone742 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  What you started this with was "Walz did not fully attain the rank of CSM". This is not a true statement. I'm getting a little worn on people who played Call of Duty coming here and trying to explain military administration. GMG^talk 17:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Drop the attitude pal. I'm a veteran. I know how rank works. I stand by what I originally said. He didn't fully attain the rank since he failed to meet the qualifications necessary for it. That's the whole reason this discussion is happening right now. Ozone742 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, tyfys, but no that's not how ranks work. GMG^talk 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain how I'm wrong then. According to a National Guard spokesman, his rank was reduced because he failed to complete the necessary coursework for it. There are other sources out there saying it also depended on him completing his contract, but I don't know of any verifiable sources that confirm that stipulation. Anyhow, Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM because of his failure to meet the qualifications for it. Ergo, he didn't fully attain the rank. That doesn't mean he never officially held it, but only that it was retroactively reduced. Ozone742 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Nope. There is no retroactive reduction. GMG^talk 20:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well...there might be a form of retroactive reduction in rank imposed by a court martial? GMG^talk 20:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I remember back when I thought my personal expertise was worth anything on wikipedia. LOL. Please see WP:V War (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'm quite familiar with V. Go up a bit where I cite my source in Army regulation. GMG^talk 20:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  What would you call it when a servicemember fails to fulfill the requirements for a promotion and is reduced in rank? Anyway, this is besides the point. Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM, and his infobox should reflect that. We have precedent on Wikipedia for this. Ozone742 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your precedents were for Ronny Jackson, demoted for various inappropriate behaviors, and Bowe Bergdahl, dishonorably discharged. These are obviously not precedents for Tim Walz. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Why? Ozone742 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  What about Eugene Vindman? He was a Col while active duty but retired as LTC due to insufficient time in rank requirement. His Wikipedia page has him listed as a LTC not Col. Eugene Vindman Arcatheo (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  So fix it in Vindman's article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  But why would I? His rank is correct he retired as a LTC because he was ineligible to retain his Col rank. Arcatheo (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please read everything that has been said here on the subject. The infobox contains highest rank held, not highest rank retained or rank for retirement purposes. And you are responding to a month old post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  “Your precedents were for Ronny Jackson, demoted for various inappropriate behaviors, and Bowe Bergdahl, dishonorably discharged. These are obviously not precedents for Tim Walz.” You are okay with their rank not being listed as highest rank attained. You wanted a better comparison, so I showed you Vindman as another example of someone’s info box not showing their highest rank attained because they were reduced before retirement for administrative reasons like Walz was. Arcatheo (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see no evidence Walz's rank was reduced before retirement. He was not demoted for various inappropriate behaviors or dishonorably discharged. How his retirement pay was based is quite different. I also don't know how the other two should be termed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're just being disingenuous again. We already have sources provided that show, objectively, that Walz's rank was reduced. If you're going to make the argument that his rank should stay the way it is in the infobox, you need to accept that and grapple with it instead of denying it. Ozone742 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  A.) False. B.) Read WP:AGF WP:CIV WP:DROPTHESTICK . O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Take your own advice. Hypocrisy isn't a good look. Ozone742 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Well, this conversation is clearly not going to be productive. Good luck. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  That was already established last time we talked on here and you repeated the same lie about Wikipedia's standard for rank in infoboxes. If you have nothing new to add to the conversation, then don't come on here. Simple as that. Talk pages aren't meant for you to bicker. Ozone742 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You would call it a reduction in rank? GMG^talk 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which proves my point. Ozone742 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  You can't be reduced from a rank you don't have. GMG^talk 00:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't hard to grasp dude. I never said that Walz didn't hold the rank of CSM. Only that he didn't fully attain it because of his failure to meet the requirements. This has already been discussed. The point of contention is that his rank in the infobox doesn't reflect his reduction like other articles for servicemembers who have had reduced rank. Ozone742 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  The difference between "hold" and "attain" is semantic. You're arguing with them as if they are highly specific terms of art with very particular meanings. You could just as well replace them with "have" and "get".

  I never said that Walz didn't have the rank of CSM. Only that he didn't fully get it.

  I don't want to denigrate your service. All honorable service is honorable. But I suspect it wasn't in military human resources administration. GMG^talk 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point of this talk page isn't to bicker about semantics or my personal life. I only bring up the point of "fully attain" vs "officially held" because you were asking about it, and because it's relevant to the matter at hand. Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM, which led to his reduction to E-8. That's the whole point here. There is no disputing that Walz didn't retain the rank of E-9 CSM, and as such, his infobox should reflect that. Engage with that material. 98.115.149.19 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Walz didn't fully attain This is the disconnect. You have not shown that. Your whole point is a house built on a missing foundation. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  The foundation is there. Just because you chose to refrain from reading the multiple reliable sources that all cite the same National Guard spokesman who stated that Walz failed to meet the qualifications for CSM doesn't mean anything. Ozone742 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  You are the one arguing semantics and bringing in your personal life. I didn't ask if you were a veteran. GMG^talk 11:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Way to be disingenuous. You said, "I'm getting a little worn on people who played Call of Duty coming here and trying to explain military administration." Grow up and actually engage with what I'm saying. Ozone742 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  besides he's liberal. So in the conversation he could claim to be on the joint chiefs and they would say oh yeah he was. Plus george Washington was only a private because he wasn't liberal. 2600:1009:B170:ADA8:D596:BD9D:74B6:EA3B (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Pretty sure not wanting a king was pretty progressive for the time. GMG^talk 12:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I understand where you're coming from, but it's more helpful to just engage with the material at hand. Wikipedia's bias is a separate topic. Ozone742 (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Portrait photo after election loss

Should his picture be changed to what it was before he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, since he lost the election? CGP05 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)