Talk:Tim Walz

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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.[1][2][3] – 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)

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)

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)

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)

CSM discussions combined

Military Career

Did he not retire as a Master Sergeant having chosen to quit the military to run for Congress ? 2603:7082:E440:D:9450:45FE:5D9C:2B3C (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what your question is? He did retire from the military as a Master Sergeant. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This stated he was a Command Sergeant Major. But he didn't finish the required training to be that rank? He retired as a Master Sergeant. That is a textual contradiction. Which is correct? 75.87.117.215 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

seems to be a controversey here: was his rank E-8P ?

Was his rank Bvt CSGM ?

TV said this promotion was conditional on him going to the middleast with his unit and he retired to avoid doing that and the rank was never actually given: again puts him at E-8P. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

TV said wrong. Retiring as an E9 was conditional on him completing the SMA, which he didn't do before retirement. He wore E9 and was paid as such, but his permanent rank for purposes of retirement was E8.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

it seems clear that he did not attain the rank of E9 if he did not complete a training required for that rank.. 2600:1006:B19E:800A:68D4:F40F:C4CB:B22F (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

One attains a rank upon appointment. If an appointment is provisional/conditional, the rank is still attained regardless of external circumstances. SinkingFeeling (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The point people are trying to make is that yes he obtained that rank but it was reduced because he didn’t complete the requirements to maintain that rank. So it is inaccurate for him to present himself as a retired command sergeant major. 162.232.217.207 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The page misrepresents facts. He was demoted from CSM to Master Sergeant due to failing to adhere to his counseling and agreements. The page still has listed he was a CSM, however that is a misrepresentation. TheNathanMuir (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna come in here because no one has mentioned it. Wikipedia consistently lists retired Lieutenant Generals in the US as rank of Lt Gen (e.g. H. R. McMaster). Notably, Lt Gen is not a permanent rank but a position, and Lt Gens are "demoted" (to use the popular phrase in this discussion) back to Major General upon retirement. Either (1) Wikipedia needs to modify every article for an American Lt Gen who subsequently retired at a 2-star paygrade, or (2) listing Walz as a CSM is in line with prior standards. Zkidwiki (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It seems its misinformation on this article. See how many RS are covering this and some are even openly calling it a controversy.

Newsweek - CBS - WaPo

68.188.156.135 (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Interesting he does list an Army Good Conduct medal. 174.17.181.7 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Command Sgt Major

Walz was reduced in rank to Master Sgt

https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz 2600:1001:B142:E918:9554:3301:AAF3:8D65 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a paid advertisement, not a reliable source. He wore CSM rank but retired as a MSG, that's not unusual but of course should still be noted. His highest rank was CSM, his pay grade upon retirement was E8. If we want to be more pedantic, we could say his highest "permanent rank" was 1SG but that seems unnecessary. For the easiest thing to say for the common reader is that he was a Command Sergeant Major for a field artillery battalion but retired as a Master Sergeant.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to mention the "paid advertisement" status. Worse still, the paid-for media doesn't actually cite anything. The sources the ad references is unlinked, and did not turn up in a search.

I will concur with ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen that the easier dialogue ought to be something similar to: "Walz received a provisional rank of Command Sergeant Major, but did not complete the requirements for that assignment before he retired as a Master Sergeant."

While I would prefer the rumors about his motive be addressed one way or another, as of this writing there aren't any credible sources of evidence on this matter - especially not that meet Wikipedia's criteria. SinkingFeeling (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

SinkingFeeling, no there are no sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria as of this moment. But they will surface soon. The battalion sergeant who replaced Walz after he retired is speaking out, so are other men in his unit who deployed to Iraq after Walz quit. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you agree that the aforementioned source isn't within Wikipedia's guidelines?

All I'm asking is that it either be removed, on account of the fact that it is a paid advertisement, or flagged as biased.

In addition I object to your use of "quit." Walz "retired," he didn't quit. He attained enough TIS to put in his retirement. He ran for Congress. Directive 1344.10 restricts the activities an active service member can do. A reasonable person could as easily make Walz's decision or push off the decision to stand for election later on.

Back on topic, the source at issue is out of complaince and needs to be addressed. SinkingFeeling (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

SinkingFeeling, object all you like. He quit his men and he quit the commitment he made not just to the Army but to those under his command. I will continue to believe the veterans who served with him and went on to serve in a war zone without him. Did you see/hear that yesterday the Harris campaign quietly changed Walz' online bio that spoke of his service in the Guard? I suppose the campaign website bio would be considered a source within Wikipedia's guidelines, wouldn't it? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

Rank Command Sergeant Major needs to be changed to Master Sergeant.

On his sidebar says he was a command Sergeant Major! He never made that rank! He was given it just before he retired and was taken away when he didn't finish the classes needed to earn it. His highest attained rank was Master Sergeant NOT command Sergeant Major. He was only awarded the rank of command sergeant major to boost his retirement pension but, he never finished the schooling so it was rescinded. I was with him in the 1st of the 125th FA. Also, he trained cooks. He was in New Ulm. 2604:2D80:7C80:1500:65A8:5DE6:56F0:B295 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says all that. Whether or not the infobox should use highest rank attained or final rank (or both) is going to have to be subject to to consensus. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to object to the source as unreliable. In it's present form, it is not only an unattributed letter to an editor (it is currently presented as a verified source) it is a paid letter to an editor. The language is biased, its own sources are dicta and does not cite anything that can be found via search engine.

Wikipedia is supposed to present as unbiased and as neutral an entry as possible. This source does neither. There are no citations refuting this, either.

In addition, the person I'm replying to doesn't even appear to be presenting this argument in good faith. Their own language is biased. In a clinical statement of fact, when Walz retired, he left as a Command Sergeant Major - but even I admit that statement requires additional context. A more factually correct statement may read "Walz received a provisional appointment to the rank of Command Sergeant Major, but did not finishing every requirement before retiring in (year). Officially Walz is retired as a Master Sergeant."

However, when active, he did attain the rank of Command Sergeant Major. There are multiple instances in military history where field commissions have been revoked or denied, but in official records those individuals are logged as having been awarded those promotions. If your point is that Walz never finished the requirements therefore he ought not to ever have be addressed as Command Sergeant Major, that is not logically sound and is not consistent with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. SinkingFeeling (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per above, and per https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/03/tim-walz-national-guard-career-minnesota-governor-race. "Capt. Holly Rockow, a public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard, said it is legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major. She said the rank changed because Walz retired before completing coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy along with other requirements associated with his promotion." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (2)

Change command sergeant major to sergeant major. 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)

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.

[4] 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.

[5]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.)

[6]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.

[7]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.

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

d.) EMDG332 (talk) 19:34, 7 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [9].

- Free college for all students with household incomes under $80,000 [10].

- Set the stage for implementing a health care public option to compete with private insurance [11].

- A $1 billion investment in affordable housing, along with landmark tenants' rights protections [12].

- A state board to set minimum workplace standards for the nursing home sector [13].

- In addition to the noncompete clause ban, a ban on captive anti-union meetings and cutting-edge protections for Amazon and meatpacking plant workers [14].

- Banning health care providers from refusing to treat patients with medical debt [15].

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 [16].

- 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 [17].

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 [18]. 174.165.76.74 (talk) 05:50, 8 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)

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)

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. [19]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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [20]. 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)

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)

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: [21]

It's also reported without commas, as here: [22], 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

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 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)

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)

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)