Jump to content

Talk:Tim Walz

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paulshikleejr (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 7 August 2024 (→Clarification on deployment …: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Police reform update

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Can you give a concrete example of what you're envisioning? Vrrajkum (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. Vrrajkum (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I thought /oʊ/ was the vowel in "hoax". 2600:1700:1900:8A70:D132:ACFF:E1CB:5031 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Re-marking this edit request as unanswered, as it has still not been fixed. 85sl (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tim Walz#Early life and education Vrrajkum (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Spot On. More needs to be stated than the use of poor criminal jargon.. AntiqueMe2 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Properly pinging @Tataral - misspelled your username, sorry! — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Right now, you're the one, using this talk page as a forum 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop using casual political forum chat terms and propose actionable changes based on reliable sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[1]
  1. ^ "Project Vote Smart — Representative Walz on HR 2642 – Funding for Military Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan". Votesmart.org. Archived from the original on December 3, 2021. Retrieved July 12, 2010.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

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

Change command sergeant major to sergeant major. [1] 162.232.217.207 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 16:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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.

</ref>https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

}} 71.86.90.109 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Walz&oldid=1239212307"