Talk:Tim Walz

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

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

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

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

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

"Though he was serving as a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major before his retirement. "

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

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

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

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

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

The first cite is not a reliable source. The second provides the quote: “retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.” The third, is a primary source being used by you for original research. The statement by you This type of verbiage continues to show the propaganda that Wikipedia creates with biasness towards Political figures. is a violation of AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Requesting immediate archiving...

New infobox photo

Propose updating infobox photo to

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

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

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

Accomplishments List

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

- The nation's leading child tax credit (cutting childhood poverty by one-third), tax rebates of up to $1,300 for middle-class and working-class families, and tax exemptions for Social Security and student loan forgiveness, paying for these and other investments by closing tax deductions used by the wealthy and big corporations [1]. - Free college for all students with household incomes under $80,000 [2]. - Set the stage for implementing a health care public option to compete with private insurance [3]. - A $1 billion investment in affordable housing, along with landmark tenants' rights protections [4]. - A state board to set minimum workplace standards for the nursing home sector [5]. - In addition to the noncompete clause ban, a ban on captive anti-union meetings and cutting-edge protections for Amazon and meatpacking plant workers [6]. - Banning health care providers from refusing to treat patients with medical debt [7].

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 [8]. - 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 [9].

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 [10]. 2601:600:9080:62D0:D1EF:E163:96CE:A896 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Service Rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged edit warring. In which you participated.

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

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

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

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

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

The standard here is the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service). Bergdahl was punished. Retirement is not a voluntary reduction in rank, otherwise there would be no rank. How retirement pay is calculated is a different matter.[11] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walz's retired military rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

"rank – optional – the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service?" [12] The two "precedents" you provided were for punishment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Try this link: [13] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

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

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

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