Talk:Tim Walz

"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)

Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year is not Substantiated

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a Forbes article: [1] FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, may not be verifiable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:17, 14 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're correct in saying LTG is a temporary rank, reserved for times of war. Generals are also temporary, however "if satisfactory service requirements are met, the general or admiral is normally allowed to hold that rank in retirement " (From the wiki page on the rank of General). However you're comparing that to not making the rank of CSM due to to dropping out of the academy. That's not a common occurrence, and not an apples to apples comparison in the slightest. Dcnazari (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Almost. LTG/GEN (O-9/10) is not reserved for times of war, however it is indeed a special category of commission under 10 USC 1370 with its own special rules for promotion and retirement, and the comparison to CSM is not apples to apples.

Walz was a CSM for ~8 months until he separated from the Army. "dropping out of the academy" was a logical consequence of separation. The reduction in rank was a logical consequence of being conditionally promoted to CSM and not completing SMC (not to mention serving an additional two years following). 173.59.123.7 (talk) 13:49, 12 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)

The entry's own language contradicts itself. It claims "he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement" but states that "The downgrade of one rank was effective from the day before his military retirement." Hence, he did not retire as a Command Sergeant Major. 173.75.38.108 (talk) 04:35, 12 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)

Retired after 24 years of service isn't quitting. I served and knew/know countless others that served. Everyone one of them either finished their terms or retired. I suppose you would call them all quitters. War (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

War, you missed my point entirely. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. @Alaska4Me2 said, "He quit his men and he quit the commitment he made not just to the Army but to those under his command."

It's pretty clear where you stand on those that served. War (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear where you stand on those that served." Apparently not. Again, War, you totally missed my point. But to respond to your ridiculous accusation, consider this: I have also served. My family has always served. In fact, my father was a three-war veteran with more DFCs and Air Medals than most flag officers who wear wings on their chests can claim. I have nothing but the highest respect for veterans. I don't have a problem with Walz' service record prior to his suspiciously-timed retirement. And I most certainly have a problem with his lies about his service after separating. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that Walz put in for retirement, from his 24 years of service, before the unit was notified that it was to deploy, and he did so specifically to run for Congress. "Suspiciously-timed" remains an inaccurate Republican talking point. Accusing him of lying is a mild WP:BLP violation I recommend you not repeat. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop it. I'm not political and haven't paid attention to any political talking points from either side. It's my opinion, I'm entitled to it and I'm allowed to repeat what reliable sources are also saying. Saying Walz was dishonest about carrying weapons in war is not a BLP violation. His comment is on video, and there's really no realistic, believable, honest way to spin his words. He's said for years in various ways since his retirement that he retained CSM at retirement. That is also false. There are reliable sources available which are speaking of the scrutiny about his claims and the facts surrounding the claims. People don't come under that kind of scrutiny unless there's a question about their honesty when making claims. If you're trying to threaten me over something you think I said from a non-existent political bias based on your own bias, good luck with getting whatever you have in mind to stick. Saying what reliable sources say (and yes, there are reliable sources outside of Wikipedia's acceptable sourcing list) can't be realistically considered a BLP violation. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to beat a dead horse with a stick here. I've provided links to RS. Have you provided any?

People don't come under that kind of scrutiny unless there's a question about their honesty when making claims. No, that's not accurate. This is American politics. See birtherism, Hillary's emails, Burisma, etc. Hell, see the original swiftboating of Kerry in 2004.

I'm not trying to "threaten" you. I am asking you to stop beating the dead horse because it's disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the Army National Guard Tim Walz was conditionally promoted to CSM, those conditions were not met so the promotions was voided and he retains the rank of Master Sargent. Any reference to the rank of CSM should have a footnote to that effect or removed entirely. 2600:1700:4270:64F0:3450:F655:B368:827F (talk) 20:23, 15 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the feedback. I respectfully request reconsideration.

1.) The source is reliable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Bold Underline Emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] 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.

[3]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.)

[4]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.

[5]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.

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

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

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

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

Wrong Rank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by former NCOs who served with Walz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Military career misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You stated:

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

You stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New source on retirement

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

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

The WSJ article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 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: [8]. The RSs that I've been able to find that mention it all source it to Fox News. If some RS confirms it independently, then we can add it. Also see this related talk page discusson. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a link to the video: [9]

It's also reported without commas, as here: [10], 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)

Military Service of Walz

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

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

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

The article already states "Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major by his final day of service. The downgrade of one rank was effective from the day before his military retirement." This issue has already been discussed extensively above. Your view has already been addressed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

NOS and retirement

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

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

Military rank error

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson was demoted by the Navy because of misconduct [11], after a formal DoDIG investigation into his conduct [12]. The situation here is not analogous. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-neutral and other wording

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

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

Something else in the same section that I feel is poorly worded and not accurately represented: "Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stolen Valor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove Criticism Section

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

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

Police reform and protest response

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2024

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

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

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

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

The page already says:

Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major by his final day of service. The downgrade of one rank was effective from the day before his military retirement. A public affairs officer for the Minnesota National Guard in 2018 said it was "legitimate for Walz to say he served as a command sergeant major", while Walz's former battalion commander, John Kolb, described his usage of the title as "frocking". A reference to Walz on his official campaign website as a "retired command sergeant major" was later updated to read he "once served at the command sergeant major rank".

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

False statements during 2006 campaign concerning DUI conviction

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

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

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