Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tim Walz: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:03, 12 August 2024 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,959 edits →Stolen Valor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:57, 6 January 2025 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,887 edits →top: added Top 50 Report 
(409 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to toc}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(7d) | algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:Tim Walz/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Tim Walz/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1 | counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 250K | maxarchivesize = 250K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 15: Line 15:
{{Annual readership}} {{Annual readership}}
{{American English}} {{American English}}
{{section sizes}} {{Skip to bottom}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=y|blp=y|activepol=yes|listas=Walz, Tim|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=y|military-priority=High|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Mid|s&a-work-group=y|s&a-priority=Mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|blp=activepol|listas=Walz, Tim|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|military-work-group=yes|military-priority=High|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Mid|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Lutheranism|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|lutheranism=yes|lutheranism-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=y|US=y|Cold-War=y|Post-Cold-War=y|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=yes|US=yes|Cold-War=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Minnesota|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Minnesota|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=y|American-importance=High}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|US-governors=y|US-governors-importance=Mid|US-military=y|Nebraska=y|Nebraska-importance=Low|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Mid|subject=Person}} {{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Mid|subject=Person}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} {{WikiProject American football |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Education |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|US-governors=yes|US-governors-importance=Mid|US-military=yes|Nebraska=yes|Nebraska-importance=Low|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=high}}
}} }}
{{Top 50 report|]|11,777,623}}

{{Top 25 report|Aug 4 2024 (1st)|Aug 11 2024 (20th)|Aug 18 2024 (6th)}}
== Police reform update ==
{{Press

|accessdate = August 15, 2024
] (]) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
|author=Joseph MacKinnon

|title=There is a desperate campaign behind the scenes at Misplaced Pages to hide JD Vance's military medals
== Typo ==
|date=August 12, 2024
Ultimately he and Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro were the two remaining contenders. ] (]) 01:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|org=]
:"Ultimately" is not appropriate here. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 01:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
|url=https://www.theblaze.com/news/there-is-a-desperate-campaign-behind-the-scenes-at-wikipedia-to-hide-jd-vances-military-medals

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 ==

{{Edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=y}}

In 1995, he was arrested for a driving under the influence charge, REMOVE COMMA HERE and has been a teetotaler ever since ] (]) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Question:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> why? ] (]) 14:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::"]" Presumably Monkeywire is one of those who don't use it, like me. Either is fine, but the article should probably try to be consistent on this point. ] (]) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't use it either. I haven't checked the article for which of the two is used the most. ] (]) 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This has nothing to do with a serial comma and the sentence has been slightly rewritten. Should be a non-issue. ] (]) 20:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 (5) ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=no}}
Remove the respelling and add a pronunciation guide in line with ]. The IPA given is identical to that of the English word 'walls', so there is no need for a respelling that won't be as helpful to anyone who is not linguistically-inclined. Just simply note that his surname is pronounced like the existing English word. ] (]) 14:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:Can you give a concrete example of what you're envisioning? ] (]) 15:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::It could read Timothy James Walz (/wɔːlz/ "walls"; born April 6, 1964)
::or Timothy James Walz (/wɔːlz/, pronounced "walls"; born April 6, 1964)
::Both styles are listed under ] ] (]) 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Done. ] (]) 15:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think "ɔ" represents the vowel with which most Americans pronounce "walls" (or the vowel that the governor uses in saying his name); I believe "ɔ" represents the vowel in "holes". I believe the correct glyph is "ɑː"; "wɑːlz". ] (]) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::This is incorrect. The 'holes' vowel is /oʊ/. /ɔ/ exists in some American dialects, but many merge it into /ɑː/. See ]; most Americans will pronounce his name as because that is the representation of the phoneme /ɔ/ in their dialect. Since 'walls' is /wɔːlz/ in every American dialect, just like Walz's surname, the pronunciation guide is correct. I request that someone restore the pronunciation guide version. ] (]) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I thought /oʊ/ was the vowel in "hoax". ] (]) 23:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::True, but the /ɔ/ vowel is not the same. In the dialects where it is present, it is the vowel in the word "cot." Most Americans pronounce it exactly like the vowel in "caught." The /oʊ/ vowel is completely separate. ] (]) 01:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Re-marking this edit request as unanswered, as it has still not been fixed. ] (]) 01:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== update reference #82 ==

Hi!
I just tried to open reference #82 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22428&can_id=65443) however the link does not work anymore. The archive link (https://web.archive.org/web/20211203112856/https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bills) does not clearly mention the cited position either.
I think it would be a good idea to update the links to these claims (e.g and tried to block the Obama-era bailout of banks and car companies after the 2008 financial crash"</nowiki>]) ] (]) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:this seems like a good source too: https://www.startribune.com/tim-walz-why-i-voted-against-the-bailout-bill/30540069 () ] (]) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== "As in fraud" ==

Do we really want to be telling people to pronounce his name "as in fraud"? ]] (]) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:Auto-generated by Misplaced Pages's IPA coding; at any rate, it's unlikely that most people will actually hover over the IPA pronunciation when "walls" is clarified right next to it. ] (]) 17:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== Walz as presumptive nominee? ==

Posted the same thing in the talk page for the 2024 presidential election page; Walz is listed here as the presumptive nominee, but on the 2024 election page he’s not given the presumptive tag. Consistency between pages would be nice. ] (]) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

== Summary box ==

Ranking member doesn’t go above being a member of congress in the summary box. It should be put below or somewhere else. See ] and ]. ] (]) 16:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:Both of the examples you gave show committee memberships listed above status in Congress; Scott and Rubio's committee memberships are just collapsible because they have multiple (whereas Walz only has one). ] (]) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::@] Your point about collapsing is correct. Thanks. Given that shouldn’t service in congress take precedent and his short tenure as ranking member be put below his 13 years service in congress (as it is more notable). Thanks ] (]) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== DUI Arrest ==

Isn’t it a bit odd that this page doesn’t mention his 1996 arrest for drunk driving? ] (]) 17:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:] ] (]) 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::Glad to see it’s been added, although it’s odd that it’s in the “Early Life And Education” section, since he was 31 years old and well out of school.
::Typically, a public figure’s criminal history goes under “Personal Life,” rather than sandwiched in a paragraph between unrelated material.
::But at least it’s there somewhere now. ] (]) 17:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Better coverage would be appreciated, if only so that no one uses a phrase like "criminal history" for the single count of reckless driving he pleaded to. ] (]) 20:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Spot On. More needs to be stated than the use of poor criminal jargon.. ] (]) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== Infobox voice box ==

Hello! I've just uploaded ] from Walz from when he was in Congress to use to potentially replace the voice box we have on the page now. If this is something anyone would like to do, feel free to take a look and pick your favorite. Cheers! ] (]) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== "Political positions" should be merged into other sections ==

It's odd that he's the governor of Minnesota but most of his successes as governor are in a completely different section that also includes his House tenure. Also, his governorship could get its own article. ] (]) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:I don't agree with the proposed merging; there are entire pages devoted to the political positions of ], ], and ]. 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). ] (]) 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''. ] (]) 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... ] (]) 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? ] (]) 21:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::This seems like a reasonable solution, having overlapping content in both the ''Tenure'' and ''Political positions'' sections. ] (]) 20:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Main page update/First Term discussion in lede ==

The section on the page main describing his first term as governor is far too critical. Should present a more balanced view. ] (]) 20:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:@] - Sorry, didn't mean to revert you there in my most recent edit, I think we published at the same time. Only meant to delete a sentence in the beginning.
:In any case, I disagree with you @] and @] about this. These are important, overarching facts related to his first term that are well-sourced and should be mentioned in the beginning. Happy to hear your thoughts as to why it shouldn't. ] (]) (]) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::"Overarching" and "overshadowed" is a matter of opinion and perspective. These are indeed events that are occurring in parallel with his governorship. Are these the only events? Are these truly and inexorably tied to his governorship in its entirety? Did they occur over the entire duration of his first term? Were there other events, achievements, accomplishments?
::Because whether something is "overshadowed" is probably best defined by the relationship between these events and the plurality of that viewpoint, combined with the impact of other events, achievements, and accomplishments.
::The source that you provided even says "some criticized." That does not lend well to being "overshadowed by failure." Who's doing the criticizing? What's the percentage?
::According to Major General Jon Jensen testified to Congress, and said that the response ''was'' expeditious, and that "putting soldiers on the streets takes time. First, they have to be called up to their local armories and then are given orders and supplies before moving out. And, Jensen said, not all Guard members have the same skills."
::The phrase "criticism for a failure" also implies that a failure has indeed occurred, and that failure is being criticized. But if Major General Jon Jensen's testimony has weight, then your wording is insertion of conclusiveness at worst and nebulous at best. It can certainly be improved if you feel it is merely nebulous.
::For example, "During X, this major event Y occurred, and some felt that Z." It's the same for the second one, where "failure to rein in" is written. I'd have to check the source, but this has the same issue. If these are third-party individuals of a less-than-overwhelming view, then what's doing the overshadowing, and what's defining the failure? Is it even objectively true? In other words, you can split these into two issues: 1 - Language that implicitly suggests it is overshadowing when the sources do not suggest it and 2 - Language that implicitly suggests that it is indeed a failure to begin with.)
::You wrote here it is "overarching," which is just another synonym for "overshadowing," without a metric by which that makes sense. But also, mostly because your source doesn't align with it very well, and it feels like colourful addenda absent additional sources. ] (]) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Properly pinging @] - misspelled your username, sorry! ] (]) (]) 20:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:It's not critical. It's balanced and sourced. We don't have to write about him in a positive way. That's not how wikipedia works ] (]) 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Making his first term only about criticism over two controversies is not really balanced. Even Trump gets a more balanced portrayal of his first term (i.e. not only criticism). I also think it's undue. The fraud case doesn't involve him personally, it's something that a company that happened to be based in his state was involved with, it doesn't belong in the lead section of Walz' biography. I also don't think the summary regarding the Floyd protests is a fair summary of his role or due in the lead. --] (]) 21:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::It's not only about criticism. The article actually praises him for his "legislative success" and "progressive (aka far-left) policies". Bad aspects of his governorship must be included too, moreover if they are sourced ] (]) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::"Progressive" isn't "far-left" in any global context, or even in ]-skewed American domestic politics. Save far-left for Maoists. Talkpages aren't Internet political fora. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Right now, you're the one, using this talk page as a forum ] (]) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Then stop using casual political forum chat terms and propose actionable changes based on reliable sourcing. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, the content, that I would like to add was already added and sourced, but then deleted for unknown reasons and there is a discussion here, whether we should reinstant that content or not. ] (]) 21:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::And whether progressive policies are far-left or not is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not advocating for calling walz "far-left" in this article, just to make it clear ] (]) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I was going to make this point also, thank you for bringing it up. I included both successes and failures for a reason.
:::It makes no sense to include only legislative successes in his second term, but fail to mention the criticisms associated with the first. ''That'' would be a balanced portrayal. It is clear that removing only the negativities paints an idealistic picture of someone who didn't have an unblemished track record as governor. ] (]) (]) 21:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::I also noted that the description of his tenure starts with his second term, which doesn't make any sense. His first term was overshadowed with the fraud scandal and his slow reaction on Floyd riots and we should write about it] (]) 21:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::We don't even reduce Trump's first term to "Trump's term was overshadowed by his attempted coup". --] (]) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Bringing trump to this article is irrelevant. And by the way, January 6 IS mentioned in his article. ] (]) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:I feel as though the crux of the issue is that the sources say that '''some''' people have a criticism of these events, and these sources are specific to those events. The people the source references: State Senator Warren Limmer. Another point is that, at least for the first event, the director of the National Guard testified to a Senate committee saying that the response was expeditious and listed reasons why it wouldn't be as quickly as some people would expect.
:To go beyond the sources to say that these "overshadow" his entire term, and define it as a failure, despite the director of the National Guard saying otherwise, seems problematic. Whose POV is this? Senator Limmer's? Can this all be written better?
:'''Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.''' ] (]) 22:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm seeing one vague sentence in the body of the article about "political opponents and other groups" criticizing Walz's response to the protests. There could possibly be value to saying something in the lead about the protests happening during Walz's first term. But adding content to the lead about political opponents criticizing Walz's response to the protests seems like it would cause problems with both NPOV and UNDUE. --] (]) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:And only keeping in language about his successes isn't UNDUE?
:{{Tq|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.}} ] (]) (]) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::The lead shouldn't use the term "legislative successes". It should just describe the legislation that he signed without editorializing about whether those policies were good or bad. --] (]) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed, and I have now edited it to say "Walz has passed legislation" instead of "legislative successes" - that sentence could use more work, but the right language isn't coming to mind right now. In any case, I think a non-editorialized version of his first term criticisms could still be included to obey ]. ] (]) (]) 21:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year is not Substantiated ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=no}}
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.] (]) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

::It has an internet footprint but from 1989 a solid reference may be hard to find. </nowiki> ] (]) 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.
:::] (]) 09:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== change heading Women's issues to Abortion? ==

A quick look at other politicians' pages shows that abortion support is often listed under the heading "Abortion" rather than "Women's issues" (e.g. ], ], ], ], ] )

It's not clear that abortion rights are a women's issue.

Please consider changing the heading from "Women's issues" to "Abortion." Thanks! ] (]) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:It's not clear that abortion rights are a women's issue? What do you mean by this? ] (])! <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 04:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I believe what they mean is that the phrase "women's issues" is a bit vague while "abortion" is more clear about what the specific issue is. ] (]) 05:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry I was unclear! I meant abortion rights are not ONLY a women's issue. I found the heading slightly jarring for that reason (I would expect abortion positions to be listed under "Abortion" or "Reproductive rights"), which led me to check other politicians' pages, where I found that they mostly use "Abortion" as the heading. I agree with Di that "Abortion" is clearer. It's also more consistent with what Misplaced Pages seems to do on other similar pages. Thank you for asking! ] (]) 14:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I see that it's been changed to "Abortion," but it might make sense to change it to "Reproductive health care" or "Reproductive rights," since he's also signed legislation protecting access to contraception and fertility treatments. Depends on whether it's important for the heading to parallel that used on other politicians' pages. ] (]) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I made the change to "Reproductive Rights" as that seems to be a more accurate description of what is covered in the section. ] (]) 14:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I see it's currently "Abortion and reproductive rights." That seems much clearer and similar to headings on other pages. Thank you all for responding to this suggestion. ] (]) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the section needs to be returned to "women's issues" because the tampons need to be included. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:Tim Walz put free tampons in the schools. He did not put tampons in the boys bathrooms. This is a ridiculous lie pushed by either dumb Republicans or Republicans trying to be funny. Their justification for this lie is it wasn't specified in the law where exactly the tampons will be placed. The obvious answer is the women's restroom and the nurse's office. The Republicans like to believe spme of the boys having transgender surgery might miraculously start menstruating and need a tampon. If a boy has become that much like a girl they are going to prefer to use the little girls room anyways where they can get all the tampons they need. ] (]) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::I am having a hard time believing that your comment isn't satire, or that you could possibly be so unintelligent. Radical leftists are so unhinged. ] (]) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, he did put free tampons in the boys room. Trying to deflect by saying he put them in girls rooms too, or just saying restrooms is more radical leftist misdirection. ] (]) 00:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Perhaps contributors to this discussion could try citing sources instead of asserting their own beliefs and namecalling. By way of a contribution, I offer the Star Tribune editorial found . Consider these excerpts:
::::Providing free menstrual products is a practical, compassionate remedy to address an under-the-radar reason for student absenteeism. Some families can’t afford menstrual products, and when that happens students stay home instead of going to class, falling behind as they do.
::::But the law’s actual language provides considerable flexibility for school districts to implement it, according to Deb Henton, the executive director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.
::::That might mean making these products available for free in various locations for all who need them, such as unisex bathrooms, girls’ bathrooms, the school nurse or the front office, but not necessarily in boys’ bathrooms. Henton, in an interview, lauded the “local control” the law provides for implementation, and said she’s fielded no concerns about its rollout.
::::At Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest school district, the free products are not found in traditional male-only bathrooms, a spokesman said. But they are provided for free to all in “nongendered bathrooms,” girls’ bathrooms or from health staffers.
:::Note as well than a majority of US states have tampon-availability statutes. ] (]) 01:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

== Adding his German-American heritage ==

According to several sources and his own social media, Tim Walz is of German-American heritage. I believe this information should be added. I am referring to this: https://www.distractify.com/p/tim-walz-parents ] (]) 06:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:Not with that source, see entry at ]. ] (]) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== Vote for continued funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan removed ==

On 00:03, 7 August 2024‎, user @] removed the following:

:He also voted to continue funding for military operations in ] and ].
|author2 = Perry Chiaramonte
The stated reason was just "fixing further issues". It seems relevant to me, so I wonder why it was removed. ] (]) 10:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
|title2 = Misplaced Pages’s Neutrality Under Fire as Studies Find Left-Leaning Bias
:I removed a number of items that lacked a ] ] to establish notability. ] (]) 15:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
|date2 = November 2, 2024
::Are you saying that Vote Smart is an unreliable source for vote counts? The relevant page is here: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/20208
|org2 = ]
::But here is a primary source: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2008431
|url2 = https://www.nysun.com/article/wikipedias-neutrality-under-fire-as-studies-find-left-leaning-bias
::Here is another primary source including the relevant discussion in Congress on this amendment: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CREC-2008-05-19/CREC-2008-05-19-pt1-PgE963/context
|lang2 =
::Regarding notability, there is now also this: https://www.aol.com/news/tim-walz-against-unaccountable-wars-171452007.html?guccounter=1 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
|quote2 =
:::Paging @] since the above editor made great points. It seems proper to add it back, else we run the risk of violating ].
|archivedate2 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
:::] (]) 09:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
|accessdate2 = November 4, 2024
:::I am saying that if the bar was simply its inclusion in databases like VoteSmart, this article would turn into a database and not a summary of the most notable votes cast.<br>Here is the original article in Reason: https://reason.com/2024/08/06/tim-walz-is-against-unaccountable-wars-but-he-voted-to-fund-them-anyways/ (always best to use the original). I would now feel comfortable including it since Reason is a reliable source but if the page gets too big, I could see it getting taken out again without more sources discussing the vote ] (]) 09:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


|author3 = John Towfighi
== Typo in table ==
|title3 = The most popular Misplaced Pages pages of 2024
|date3 = December 3, 2024
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/03/business/wikipedia-most-viewed-2024/index.html
|lang3 =
|quote3 =
|archivedate3 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate3 = December 13, 2024
}}


== Tampon Tim ==
Under electoral history, the 2006 table has a typo. The given percentages sum to 100.8%.
If you go through to the source page, it lists Walz share as 52.7% rather than the 53.7% shown on this page. ] (]) 11:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


The article does nothing to explain the actual meaning of the nickname. It wasn't just that he wanted to supply menstrual supplies to students. It's that they were included in boy's restrooms, on the presumption that boys menstruate. (They don't, for those unaware.) This should be explained in the article as currently it makes the nickname seem mean-spirited and anti-female, implying that the objection was to the free supply to girls, which wasn't the case. Objection was push back to the notion children can change their sex. ] (]) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
== Teaching ... Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota ==
:Whoever just deleted this is requested to use ]. There is nothing in the archives showing this has been discussed. If so, please link to it.] (]) 13:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The very article apparently being used as a reference in the article talks about it. Which makes it seem previous editors have either misinterpreted the reason for the nickname, or perhaps just didn't read far enough into the article. This is what it says: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5066878/tim-walz-tampon-law-minnesota


:::But Republicans appear to be taking issue with the wording of the legislation, which says the products must be available “to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students.”
Edit ...


:::Some Minnesota Republicans initially tried to limit the initiative to female-assigned and gender-neutral bathrooms, but were unsuccessful. Even the author of that amendment ultimately voted for the final version of the bill, saying his family members “felt like it was an important issue I should support.”
Early career, Teaching ... Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota


:::The bill’s inclusive language reflects that not all people who menstruate are women, and not all women get periods, which was important to those who lobbied for the legislation.
"After high school, Tim held a series of odd jobs ranging from building grain silos to manufacturing to mortgage loan processing as he explored America. He accepted a temporary teaching position at the Native American Reservation in Pine Ridge, South Dakota. It was this experience that convinced Tim to follow his father’s lead and become a teacher."


:::“It will make it more comfortable for everyone … then people can use whatever restroom they want without being worried,” Bramwell Lundquist, then 15, told MPR News last year.


https://krocnews.com/meet-mn-governor-and-lt-governor-candidates-tim-walz-and-peggy-flanagan/ ] (]) 11:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC) :::But some in the Republican Party — which has increasingly promoted anti-transgender policies and rhetoric — '''see that aspect of the bill as a reason to attack Walz.''' (emphasis added)] (]) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:The election is over. Can we not post election lies here? This was widely debunked. ] (]) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::The news story used as a reference in the article states it flat out. In what way is the reason for the nickname "debunked"? Whether or not it happened, that's how he got the nickname and that context is important. ] (]) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::And your LA Times article "debunking" it says this: "So why the Tampon Tim uproar? Mostly it is about the language of the Minnesota law, which states that pads and tampons must be available to “all menstruating students” " This is the missing context of the Misplaced Pages article. Your link: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-08-07/tim-walz-tampon-law-menstrual-products ] (]) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Read the seven links I provided in their entirety. The law does NOT say tampons must be put in boys rooms. It says nothing about sex changes. It is similar to laws in a couple dozen states, many supported by Republicans. The law was widely supported in the state. ] (]) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::The links are irrelevant since what the bill actually said is not the point (thought your links do confirm the wording as "menstruating students" so hardly debunked). We're talking about the context and rationale for the nickname. Regardless of what the bill actually said, the nickname is a reference to the perception that menstrual products were being made available in boy's spaces. The article at present paints those giving the nickname unfairly.] (]) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::In fact, the CNN article you cite actually states that tampons may have been available in male multi-stall bathrooms.] (]) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Trump stated: “He signed a bill that boys’ bathrooms — all boys’ bathrooms in Minnesota — will have tampons.” Ridiculous lie. The CNN article states: "All 15 of the districts that responded Friday to a CNN survey of 25 districts, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts in the state’s two most populous cities, said they comply with the law without providing tampons in traditional boys’ bathrooms." ] (]) 16:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I never mentioned Trump. The NPR article used as a reference is the one to state the rationale. Again, it doesn't matter what Trump said - we're talking about the origin of the nickname, and the fact that it is misrepresented in the article as currently written.] (]) 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, according to reliable sources it was misrepresented by Trump. The article states what reliable sources state. ] (]) 11:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Trump had it right. The law as written deliberately mentioned "menstruating students" instead of the word "girls" because of the agenda it was promoting. And Walz got called Tampon Tim because of that, not the fact that the products were free.] (]) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That there was some such "agenda" is your opinion, and a mighty unlikely one at that. We don't use our opinions ]. We use ]. ] (]) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024 ==
== Appointment to Third Committee as a Freshman Congressman ==

In the US House of Representatives Section


I have two other sources for Nancy Pelosi waiving the rule allowing only two committee assignments to Freshman Representatives.

Fischenich, M. (2007, January 18). ''Walz joins veterans committee''. Mankato Free Press. <nowiki>https://www.mankatofreepress.com/news/local_news/walz-joins-veterans-committee/article_a1b045c1-3865-5516-af87-74d5619a938b.html</nowiki>

Committee limit waived, Walz appointed to veterans panel - Post Bulletin | Rochester Minnesota news, weather, sports. (2013, January 9). ''Rochester Post Bulletin''. <nowiki>https://www.postbulletin.com/news/committee-limit-waived-walz-appointed-to-veterans-panel</nowiki>

This topic cis currently marked as "non-primary source needed" ] (]) 13:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== CSM discussions combined ==
=== Military Career ===

Did he not retire as a Master Sergeant having chosen to quit the military to run for Congress ? ] (]) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure what your question is? He did retire from the military as a Master Sergeant. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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.. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm gonna come in here because no one has mentioned it. Misplaced Pages consistently lists retired Lieutenant Generals in the US as rank of Lt Gen (e.g. ]). 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) Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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'' " (]). 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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.
::::::::: - -
:::::::::] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting he does list an Army Good Conduct medal. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages's criteria. ] (]) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::], no there are no sources that meet Misplaced Pages'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 ] (]) 01:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Then you agree that the aforementioned source isn't within Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 05:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::], 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 Misplaced Pages's guidelines, wouldn't it? A4M2 ] (]) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

=== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 ===


{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}} {{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Change Command Sargent Major to Master Sargent. Highest grade attained by Timothy Walz as per his official military 201 and finance records is E-8: aka Master Sargent. ] (]) 12:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Rank Command Sergeant Major needs to be changed to Master Sergeant.
*{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> This has been discussed again and again. ] (]) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 ==
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. ] (]) 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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.
:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's editing guidelines. ] (]) 04:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> 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." --] 13:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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


{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}} {{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Change rank from Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant.
Change command sergeant major to sergeant major. <ref>https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz</ref> ] (]) 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Tim Walz failed to complete all requirements to keep the rank of Command Sergeant Major therefore he was demoted to Master Sergeant after retirement. ] (]) 05:27, 13 November 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> See the previous discussions ] ] 05:44, 13 November 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Walz retired as a command sergeant major, but his rank was later changed to Master Sergeant, one rank below, because he did not complete the requirements to hold the rank into retirement, according to documents provided by the Minnesota Army National Guard. Consequently, Walz’s retirement benefits are those of a master sergeant, not a command sergeant major.
:::Even so, it is OK for Walz to cite his CSM rank in his biography and campaign materials because he, in fact, served in that rank, according to Master Sgt. Blair Heusdens of the Minnesota National Guard Public Affairs Office.
:::“In his case, Tim Walz served as a Command Sergeant Major in the Minnesota National Guard, and it was the highest and last rank that he held in our organization,” Heusdens said. “It is correct for him to say that he served as a command sergeant major.” ] (]) 04:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/answer-man-is-walzs-rank-rank ] (]) 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 ] (]) 05:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::he was still a command sergeant major ] (]) 07:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> 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. --] 13:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Not correct according to an investigative article from the Washington Post.<ref> {{Cite web |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/tim-walz-military-record/# |website= Washington Post |date= August 7, 2024 |access-date= August 7, 2024 |quote= The Harris campaign declined to address why Walz has inaccurately said he retired as one. He has sometimes called himself a “former command sergeant major,“ which is accurate.}}</ref> If you read that article, his reduction to ] 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. — ] ] 03:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC) — ] ] 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 ] (]) 06:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


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


Is there an official portrait that we can use for the info box? ] (]) 02:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Referring to this: https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz. Presently and rightly protected.


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024 ==
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 Misplaced Pages's citation guidelines.

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

:Absolutely ] (]) 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".<ref>{{Cite web |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/tim-walz-military-record/# |website= Washington Post |date= August 7, 2024 |access-date= August 7, 2024 |quote= The Harris campaign declined to address why Walz has inaccurately said he retired as one. He has sometimes called himself a “former command sergeant major,“ which is accurate.}}</ref>
:As such, at the very least, the infobox should not show his rank as Command Sergeant Major. I support changing that. — ] ] 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 ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages'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. ] (]) 04:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
=== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (3) ===


{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}} {{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
I was in the process of adding a visual of the governor's medal rack from his military service in a module at the bottom of the info box. but I was interrupted just before 10:30pm central time when the page locked.
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. ] (]) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> 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. --] 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Justthenews.com is operated by ], as unreliable a source as there is. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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.
::::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.
::::] ] (]) 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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 '''<u>demoted</u>'''. "(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 '''<u>condition of this promotion</u>'''. '''<u>Failure to meet the condition will cause demotion</u>''' per AR 600–8–19.”," the regulation reads in para. 6–11. Promotion instruments c., (3.)
::::::: (Bold Underline Emphasis mine)
::::::: 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</nowiki>]
::::::] (]) 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) . 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. ] (]) 21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You seem to have conflated "any article on current events" with "verified sources." Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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.
:::::::: ] (]) 05:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

=== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (4) ===

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Rank: Master Sergeant

Add a dropdown menu for “Military Career”
Include positions held and departments ] (]) 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 ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> --] 15:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

=== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (5) ===

{{Edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Change
"Walz attained the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy."

To
"Walz attained the conditional rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. According to Army Regulation 600-8-19, a soldier who does not complete the requisite coursework results is automatically demoted. "The Soldier must complete the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Course as a condition of this promotion. Failure to meet the condition will cause demotion per AR 600 – 8 – 19," the regulation reads.

<ref>https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface
</ref> ] (]) 17:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> Justthenews.com is operated by ], as unreliable a source as there is. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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.
::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.
::]
::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.)
::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.
::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.
::https://sofrep.com/news/the-truth-about-governor-tim-walzs-military-service/
::d.) ] (]) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Just the News is asa reliable as any mainstream legacy site. ] (]) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::False. Justthenews.com is the site ] used to push lies about the Bidens and Ukraine. . &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 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. ] (]) 18:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Read the article. It points out that Walz ''retired'', and discusses the rank change upon retirement. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 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. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
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. ] (]) 19:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> See threads above. – ] (]) 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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wickenhauser |first1=Lorri |title=VP Pick Tim Walz Accused of 'Stolen Valor' by Former Military Colleagues: 'He Abandoned Us' |url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/vp-pick-tim-walz-accused-of-stolen-valor-by-former-military-colleagues-he-abandoned-us/ar-AA1olmZQ |publisher=The Western Journal |access-date=8 August 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lamothe |first1=Dan |title=Tim Walz’s military record, National Guard departure get new scrutiny |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/tim-walz-military-record/ |publisher=The Washington Post |access-date=8 August 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Collin |first1=Liz |title=Third command sergeant major corroborates story of Walz dodging deployment |url=https://alphanews.org/third-command-sergeant-major-corroborates-story-of-walz-dodging-deployment/ |publisher=Alpha News |access-date=8 August 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 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. ] is a POV outlet, as is "Alpha News". I merely focused on ] in my edit summary when I reverted you without noting the others. This story is an attempt at ] based on some sour grapes and This is a good example of why we prefer ] sources over primary. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Per ], 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 ]? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 , 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. ] (]) 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for that breakdown. Makes sense. ] (]) 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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vaidyanathan |first1=Vaishnavi |title=Criticism From Ex-Battalion Leader John Kolb Sparks Rumors |url=https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/is-tim-walz-resigning-criticism-from-ex-battalion-leader-sparks-rumors-article-112453091 |publisher=Times Now News |access-date=12 August 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 06:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Birthday Question for Tim Walz. ==

Both of the April 1964 newspapers for the area say James Walz's son was born on 5 April. Can we verify the birth certicate? I will post links to the papers. ] (]) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=walz&t=39592&i=t&d=04011964-05012023&m=between&ord=k1&fn=west_point_republican_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=6&cid=2989 ] (]) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?k=walz&t=39589&i=t&by=1964&bdd=1960&d=01011964-12311964&m=between&ord=k1&fn=cuming_county_democrat_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=2&cid=2989 ] (]) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

::Because the name Walz is highlighted in the first of the 2 links above, it's impossible to see the date in question. This modified link allows it to be seen, at the very bottom of the center column:
:::https://johnastahlne.advantage-preservation.com/viewer/?t=39592&i=t&d=04011964-05012023&m=between&ord=k1&fn=west_point_republican_usa_nebraska_west_point_19640409_english_5&df=1&dt=6&cid=2989
::] (]) 18:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== US Military Service ==

Walz was not a ComSgtMaj!
He never completed testing! ] (]) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:See above. He was until he retired, when he reverted to his former rank. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 18:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:And see the comment above concerning the three years in grade rule for retirement. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out 1) how this is a neutral statement "Although Walz has been criticized for the timing of his retirement, a colleague said that at the time they had not been notified that they were going to be deployed." and 2) why suddenly this entire page seems to have become making excuses and defending his short comings? Honest question. ] (]) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== was deployed overseas. ==

He never went overseas. ] (]) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

: &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Note that a military "deployment" does not necessarily mean to a combat zone. When a navy ship crosses the Atlantic from Virginia to Spain, that's a deployment. Walz's unit was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. That deployment brought them to Italy, which obviously isn't a war zone, but he was deployed in support of the war (Operation Enduring Freedom).] (]) 08:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

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

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Gov. Tim Waltz was demored and retired as a Master Sergeant not a Command Sergeant Major please correct main page. ] (]) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> See threads above – ] (]) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2024 (8) ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Edit rank for military service from Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant

<ref> https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-disputes-tim-walzs-military-biography-1936038 </ref> ] (]) 22:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> See threads above. – ] (]) 05:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Clarification on deployment … ==

The sentence, "During his service, he worked in disaster response postings following floods and tornadoes and was deployed overseas," should be changed to "During his service, he worked in disaster response postings following floods and tornadoes and was deployed overseas, but did not see combat," because the source states "Walz acknowledges he never saw combat."

This is important because that same source says, "During that race , Walz's service was a prominent feature, and also a source of a late-campaign dispute.

"Tom Hagen, a military reservist from Waseca, Minn., who served in Iraq, wrote a letter to a newspaper in the district saying that Walz wasn't being entirely candid about his record 'through artful omission' about where his overseas missions took him. Hagen said voters deserved to know Walz didn't deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan."

In <https://x.com/kamalahq/status/1820918063966962143>, Walz says, in part, "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war … ." By his own admission, he was never "in war."

So for full disclosure, in the face of him continuing to make statements like the immediately above, the sentence should be edited to allow readers to know that he did not actually see war. ] (]) 23:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:The article says {{tq|He did not deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, or a combat zone during his service.}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 23:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::There is an episode on CSPAN with him saying he was a 24 year veteran and he said he was deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom going around, but only conservative sites that are banned here seem to be linking to the video, can someone else find a liberal one that is ok with wikipedia editors to link with? ] (]) 00:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@]
:::Would this be ] then?
:::]. I am trying to learn why my TP post was the only one targeted. ] (]) 03:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::He is a 24 year veteran and he was deployed during OEF/OIF. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::Please specify where that is in the article. I don't see it. ] (]) 04:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@Muboshgu Please specify where that is in the article. I don't see it. ] (]) 04:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::That sentence was in the military section. It looks to have been removed. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Governor photo ==

This appears to be Tim Walz's official gubernatorial portrait: https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-kit/ https://mn.gov/governor/about-gov/timwalz/<br>Could anyone find its license to see if it's usable here please? ] (]) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Military career misinformation ==

This article also incorrectly claims Walz served in the US Army instead of the National Guard. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

Please see the following RS' for reference: - -

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.

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
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.

] (]) 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, ]. 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. ] (]) 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.
::] (]) 04:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit extended-protected}} template.<!-- Template:EEp --> – ] (]) 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)
::] (]) 05:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Clearly not an uncontroversial edit. Closing template for now. ] (]) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::It would indeed be helpful if IPs stop opening new sections with the same request. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Butter Carving ==

is butter carving his hobby? This is essential information. ] (]) 03:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

: says yes.
:] (]) 03:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::Once or twice trying butter carving at the State Fair as a politician does not constitute a genuine hobby. If anyone wants to say that editing Misplaced Pages is my hobby, I will plead guilty as charged because I have edited Misplaced Pages most days for 15 years. There would need to be far better evidence to call butter carving a genuine Walz hobby, rather than the thin and tattered evidence presented thusfar. Does he regularly fill his grocery cart with many pounds of butter to repeatedly practice sophisticated butter carving innovations? Evidence, please. ] (]) 06:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Infobox note ==

There is a "note" in the infobox rank= parameter which does not appear in /doc of the infox's template page. Was there ever a consensus to specify that parameter should use only the highest rank, leading to the placement of such a "note". I've looked and can't find the consensus. There are now several reliable sources supporting he retired at a lower rank. Even the body of the article mentions it. So who put that note into the template, and where is the consensus discussion? — ] ] 04:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:I have also tried to find said consensus and there seems to be none.
:I posted earlier about many RS covering this issue with even CBS calling it a ''controversy''. Others call it the ''stolen valor accusations''.
:Some of the many RS' for reference: - -
:I hope this can be fixed.
:] (]) 04:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Much of the disagreement turns on Walz's rank at the moment of his retirement.
:- In a strict, literal sense, the moment Walz retired, he was a CSM. He had been promoted and had held that rank.
:- He choose to run for Congress. As he had served 24 years, nothing could stop him from turning in his papers. Every member of the military has that option after they hit retirement.
:- When he retired, he had outstanding training requirements for CSM. By not completing them, his provisional promotion was revoked.
:In one camp, there are people who agree that when Walz retired he was a CSM. The provisional promotion and subsequent recission does not matter to this crowd.
:In another camp, that Walz doesn't volunteer constitutes "stolen valor."
:Stolen valor refers to embellishments of service, the displaying of medals one didn't earn, or outright lying about one's military service. Between the statements of the National Guard not dismissing nor countering Walz's statement that he retired as a CSM, and Army Manual AR 600 – 8 – 19, section 1-35 ''a''(14) clearly states that a provisional promotion that is not completed is simply rescinded and not a military-style demotion.
:Walz was promoted to CSM. Provisional or not, it is a rank he earned.
:To date, there are no medals or duty stations he reports to have earned or served at that are inconsistent with his record.
:The closest Walz comes to "stolen valor" is his statement about carrying a weapon of war. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Walz was talking rhetorically or not.
:I don't believe the stolen valor complaint carries water, nor is it in good faith. The argument in its favor - in the best possible light - is strained. The average person does not care the retirement benefits of a SGM vs a CSM. The "bark" of people promoting stolen valor is at best exaggerated. The argument doesn't draw the clear-cut falsehood that a charge of stolen valor requires. It would be easier, and not up for debate, if Walz outright lied about being a CSM when he wasn't - except that's not true.
:Sometimes there aren't two sides of a story. This "stolen valor" nonsense reeks of manufactured controversy. Walz's detractors need something they can freely criticize him on, and they're crying crocodile tears until they get their way.
:I appreciate the need for consensus, but sometimes there ''isn't'' two sides of a story. Just as there is no need to fact-check the sun rising in the east, the aforementioned Army manual and statements kill the complaint where it stands. ] (]) 05:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::I read you and want to commend you for striving to be neutral and having done extensive and relevant research. But if I have learned something from the near-gatekeeping level of strictness that long-time WP editors display in these "protected" articles is that ] stands and we should only care what RS report.
::As such, many RS are reporting this as a controversy. We shouldn't editorialize and just report it as is. After all, ] is not opinion.
::My $0.02.
::] (]) 05:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::CSM and SGM are both the same pay grade, E-9. The major difference is that the Command Sergeant Major (CSM) has much broader and wider responsibility than the Sergeant Major (SGM). ] (]) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not sure about any consensus, but the precedent from the ] is that rank is "the highest rank achieved by the person". ] (]) 06:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Political positions ==

I think the sections on Abortion/Reproductive rights & Cannabis should be moved to the ] section.

Currently, this is buried under the Tenure sub-heading, here: ]

Would be much easier to find if it was all included under the Political positions section instead, making it easier and more clear for the casual reader to jump quickly to this part of the article, and get a quick take on where he stands on the issues.

Thank you for considering this request. ] (]) 05:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:I think it needs to be in both places, with relevant legislation that he signed in the ''Tenure'' section and non-legislative content (e.g., quotes) under ''Political positions''. I've made that split for abortion-related contents. ] (]) 13:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Also see the discussion at ] ] (]) 13:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Fuller List of Gubernatorial Accomplishments ==

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

- The nation's leading child tax credit (cutting childhood poverty by one-third), tax rebates of up to $1,300 for middle-class and working-class families, and tax exemptions for Social Security and student loan forgiveness, paying for these and other investments by closing tax deductions used by the wealthy and big corporations .

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

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

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

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

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

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


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 .

- 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 .


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 . ] (]) 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Military service ==
{{cot|Seems to be a lot of back-and-forth with bad-faith IPs; closing for length reasons and remember ] ] (]) 08:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)}}
never achieved rank of command Sergeant major and retired to avoid deployment to Irac with his unit also never saw active combat of any kind during his career] (]) 13:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:The country is spelled Iraq in English. -- ] (]) 16:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:He didn't retire to avoid deployment. See of this. The rank issue is already addressed in the article. ] (]) 13:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::Established Fact that he was never a command sergeant major also. There have been countless instances relating to CNN publishing incorrect articles exagerated mis information and outright deception for these reasons I think the people he served with are a more reliable source than CNN. Using his own words referring to himself as a combat veteran and carried a gun in war is outright deception to portray himself as something he isnt. ] (]) 14:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::When, in "his own words", did he say he saw combat? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::He used the word war. ] (]) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::He said "in war", not "in combat", and you changed the post that I replied to from "combat" to "war". He was deployed overseas during OEF/OIF, which is war. We've gone over this on Pete Buttigieg's article.
:::::I see Republicans are trying to Walz now. We won't play along. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::speech while running for governor of Minnisota he referred to himself as a combat veteran he has never seen combat or war for that matter his deployments have never taken him to within the same country borders where a war was taking place. He was in Europe in a support capacity and he should say that instead of implying he is something he is not. Also the fact that he retired when actually scheduled for the possibility of an actual "combat" deployment I think speaks volumes ] (]) 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, show me where he referred to himself as a "combat veteran". He never said he saw combat. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And retirement from the military is something that takes months. He retired, then after that was finalized his unit was deployed. There's nothing nefarious there, no matter how much you pretend there is. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I remember when you actually used to try to make it seem like you were neutral. Now you don't try at all. ] (]) 22:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Please, enlighten me, how are the facts not neutral? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::'''Facepalm''' ] (]) 00:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Command sergeant major Thomas Barons (an actual Command Sergeant Major) and one of Tim's commanding officers stated in an interview that their unit trained for 6 mo in preparation for deployment while the actual orders came 2 mo after he filed retirement papers it is also undisputed that his unit was in training and in no way could he have not known that he would be deployed by those facts we can say undoubtedly he knew full well by retiring he would avoid a deployment into an actual "combat" situation. Only he knows his reasons but he knew he was avoiding deployment.BTW in the context of carrying a gun during combat or war I did change the word to accurately reflect the difference in terminology between the 2 speeches. ] (]) 15:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Again, you've yet to cite any WP:RS. Instead of simply arguing, propose the text that you want added, along with citations for it. Then we can work through what the text will actually say. ] (]) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I guess I do not need a new cite since your cite from politico outlines the exact timeline I explained overlapping the pre deployment training with his retirement fact is he knew and you can't deny that part of it. He claims it was to run for congress maybe it was only he knows ] (]) 16:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::He doesn't just "claim that it was to run for Congress." As the CNN article notes with a link, "Walz filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission as a candidate for Congress on February 10, 2005" (), and the Guard didn't announce a possible deployment until the following month.
:::::::::I'm not denying that he knew about the deployment before he retired. I'm disputing your claim that he "retired to '''avoid''' deployment." The Politico article doesn't say that. ] (]) 16:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, you've yet to propose text that you want introduced. Are you going to do that or aren't you? ] (]) 16:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::A few more sources referring to the swiftboating of Walz: , , ] (]) 15:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::also in your cite task and purpose there are no dates listed at all except the may 2005 announcement to run for congress the only significant information is another commander in his unit making a Facebook post that he fulfilled his commitment and was entitled to retire absolutely nothing about the timing of his retirement or that he retired before he knew he would be deployed so please stop using cites without pertinent information ] (]) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Also, it turns out that Chris LaCivita, "a consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group" is involved here (). ] (]) 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Your statements in this entire thread is proof forward that wikipedia has become nothing more than radical leftist propaganda, deflection and disinformation. ] (]) 22:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I cited CNN as ] re: your false claim that he "retired to avoid deployment to Irac ." You condemn CNN as a reliable source but have not cited any WP:RS at all. ] (]) 14:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/past-criticisms-vp-nominee-tim-walzs-retirement-military-resurface
::::He retired shortly after he learned his unit could be deployed to Iraq according to Minnesota national guard. Also, imagine demanding WP:RS and citing Crap «News» Network, the irony there is hilarious. But such is the mental faculties, or rather lack thereof of neets who spend all day on wikipedia, how sad life must be
::::Regardless, he was demoted to Master sargeant since he did not comply with the stipulations of his promotion, thus this article should reflect that ] (]) 16:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Justthenews.com is literally fake news. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::@], Is justthenews.com listed as a unreliable source on WP? --] (]) 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Ooligan}}, it is not listed at ]. , likely because it hasn't been raised as an issue, meaning people trying to pass it off as RS. The site is run by ] and our wiki bio on him describes his descent from legitimate journalism to being one of the core pushers of the Biden/Ukraine/Burisma hoax prior to the 2020 election. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your prompt response. -- ] (]) 03:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Consider this a reminder of WP's ] rule; don't do it again. As for "this article should reflect that," it ''does'' reflect that. It clearly says "He retired as command sergeant major on May 15, 2005. His rank was later changed to master sergeant for retirement benefit purposes, since he did not complete required additional coursework." ] (]) 16:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Good point. I didn't even notice because I stopped reading their post when I saw the fake news site url. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I never stated he retired to avoid deployment to Irac I stated that he knew before hand that by retiring he would not be deployed and even said only he knows the reasons ] (]) 16:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The country is spelled Iraq in English. -- ] (]) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::You absolutely did state that he "retired to avoid deployment to Irac." That quote is from your very first comment. ] (]) 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are correct about my first quote but I think my timeline and explanation has more than explained and since we both agree and it is supported by the timeline I dont think the statement is out of line he retired, he knew that decision would avoid him being deployed and he was not deployed ] (]) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Don't say "we both agree," when we do not agree. You are continuing to ignore that he filed to run for Congress a month before the guard announced that it would later deploy. Moreover, "In a 2009 , Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees" ().
:::::::And for the umpteenth time, if you want text introduced on the page, propose some actual text for the article. ] (]) 17:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The IP that started this topic wrote,
:::::*"... ''and r<u>etired to avoid deployment</u> to Irac with his unit'' ..."
:::::and now the IP now writes the opposite,
:::::*"''I never stated he retired to avoid deployment to Irac'' ..."
:::::] (]) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Here's a longer quote of what Walz said: “I’ve been voting for commonsense legislation that protects the Second Amendment. But we can do background checks, we can do CDC research, we can make sure we don’t have reciprocal-carry among states, and we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” (from this video posted at ). Seems to me that if we're going to add something about the latter part of the quote, we also need to add something about the former part -- that the statement was made in the context of gun control. ] (]) 16:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::He implied he went to war yes we know he was deployed in a support role out of country/danger why cant he say that? How do you explain away him calling himself a combat veteran in a speech running for governor.You dont address nor your cites any of the undisputed facts of this situation] (]) 16:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::He never "implied he went to war", the Trump/Vance campaign is saying that. He never said he was a "combat veteran"; you can't point to a quote because it's imaginary. All of this is campaign spin. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::During his run for governor ] (]) 16:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Show us the quote in a reliable source. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::How convienent the webpage walzflannagin.org now forwards to donations for kamala harris/walz campain I wonder why that websight with all that information about Tim walz all of a sudden needed to be pulled down ] (]) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::You have no source, only distraction. This thread needs to be closed. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't oppose shutting this thread down, but I think we're going to end up needing to add something to the article about the two related controversies (the responses to Walz saying "in war" and the timing of Walz's retirement) and claims that this is just another instance of swiftboating. However, I think we'd need to sort out the actual wording here before adding it to the article. ] (]) 18:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::We can write it up at ], which IPs will then likely ignore as they do the FAQs on RFK Jr and Harris's talk pages. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::His service awards says it all.... 1 ARCOM, and 2 AAM's for 24 years of service? No campaign ribbions, nothing. And he said he went to war. I've seen 2 years in PFC's with more awards. He clearly said :When I was in war, using these "Weapons of War". STOLEN VALOR! And if not, I would love to hear about the time when the U.S. ARMY issued him an AR-15. I'll be waiting..... ] (]) 17:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, we're done here. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}

== Served in Korean War? ==

Korean war was over in 1953 he wasn't born until 1964. ] (]) 18:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:The article states that Walz's ''father'' served in the Korean War, not Walz himself. ] (]) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{facepalm}} &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Possible "military controversies" text ==

There's been a lot of discussion of these issues on this Talk page, as well as some edits/reversions to the article's text. Here’s some proposed text about the controversies re: Walz’s military service, though the length is probably ]. Should this be addressed in the article? What improvements do people suggest?

:Controversy about Walz having used an assault rifle “in war”:

:In a video clip posted by the ] in August 2024 about gun legislation, Walz argued in favor of things like background checks and researching the effects of gun violence, also saying “we can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” () Some Republicans objected to the phrase “in war,” as Walz had not served in combat. (add citations) Vice presidential candidate ] called it “stolen valor garbage” and “dishonest.” () The Harris campaign downplayed the phrasing issue, noting that Walz has “carried, fired and trained others to use weapons of war innumerable times.” ()

:Controversy about the timing of Walz’s retirement:

:On February 10, 2005, Walz filed to run for Congress. () Walz retired from the National Guard in May 2005, and CNN reports that “in a 2009 interview for the Library of Congress (), Walz said he left the guard to focus full time on running for Congress, citing concerns about trying to serve at the same time and the Hatch Act, which limits political activities for federal employees" (same CNN citation). ABC News reports that National Guard records show that Walz’s unit “received an alert order on July 14, 2005, two months after Walz retired,” and not receiving the mobilization order until August, then mobilizing in October. () Vance criticized the timing of Walz’s retirement, saying that “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, … he dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,” and calling it “shameful.” (CNN and ABC again) In response, the Harris-Walz campaign emphasized Walz’s retirement “after 24 years of military service” and thanked Vance for his own service. ()

:A number of media outlets have responded that these controversies are another instance of swiftboating (, , ). NBC News reports that Chris LaCivita, an adviser to the Trump campaign, and “a consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group … signaled an eagerness to reopen the playbook on Walz.” ()
It's also possible to introduce responses by others, including those who served with Walz and others who've served (e.g., Sen. Mark Kelly). But I'm already concerned about the length. ] (]) 21:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:Never, not once has a US Military unit issue an AR-15. M16's and M4"s are not available for legal purchase in the general civilian population. ] (]) 21:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't seen any ] raising that issue in this context, nor have you cited any. My goal here is to come up with ] consensus text that's supported by RS. ] (]) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:This is very well researched and shows the many limitations on this article. It seems a request for consensus is in order.
:] (]) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::I see that some of this is already being introduced into the article, though not touching on the responses by Republicans or claims of swiftboating. Unless there's interest in discussing it further here, maybe that's the way to go. is now out with a good discussion of many of these issues. ] (]) 11:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Reywas92}}, I see that you've twice removed the fact that Republicans criticized Walz about the timing of his retirement, saying only that they "used the timing of his military retirement as a smear campaign." While I agree that what they're doing is swiftboating, I think WP:NPOV requires that we also characterize what Republicans are doing from their perspective. Rather than edit warring, let's talk this through here. (And I'm putting this comment here because I think it's related to this category. I'm not expecting you to engage with my rough draft above, some of which has already been introduced into the article; I think the more succinct text in the article is better than what I wrote above.) ] (]) 22:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::NPOV does ''not'' require a he-said, she-said as if all sides are valid and must be presented from the perspective of the accusers. Even to just say they criticized it or especially to include quoted phrases implies there a legitimate basis to such criticism, and we do not have to posit it as a statement followed by a response when the former is plainly being made in bad faith. Those who study disinformation are clear that the original lie should not be restated even if followed by a clarification. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::We don't go by what people who study disinformation say. We go by WP's policies, which include WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Plenty of RS report that he's been criticized for it. I'm not saying that all sides are equally valid. I'm pointing out that WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I'm no longer suggesting that we include quotes. And given that it's one phrase out of an entire paragraph, it's getting a proportionately small mention, while presenting facts that counter it. But it's inappropriate not to mention it at all.
:::There's an entire page devoted to ] It points out that the attacks were discredited, but it clearly doesn't refrain from noting out that some criticized his military service. ] (]) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::@] NPOV requires us to avoid false balance. I haven't looked very hard but if there are some good reliable sources tackling the issue and ''not'' concluding it's an intellectually dishonest, bad faith GOP attack, the article should say that. Until then, we must avoid giving UNDUE weight to partisan smears.-<b style="background:#00ffff">'']''</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 87%">(])</span> 23:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree that it's an intellectually dishonest, bad faith GOP attack, but how is it a false balance when most of the paragraph is devoted to debunking it? Consider the discussions by RS like and -- they don't shy away from specifying what the attack is while also presenting counterfacts. Even though I think it ''is'' a smear campaign, I also think that NPOV requires us to acknowledge that it's seen differently on the other side. ] (]) 00:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Ich}} and {{u|Reywas92}}, I'm hoping that you'll continue this discussion until we reach a consensus. From the comments on this talk page, how to handle the article's text about this is clearly contentious. We should try to work it out, and if we can't, perhaps there needs to be an RfC, given the number of people who've gone back and forth on the edits about this / the number of people who've commented on it here. Thanks, ] (]) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think there's much to acknowledge beyond that they're making a stink about it because it's a convenient line of attack. No one making these attacks at the top legitimately believes a 24-year veteran with a four-year-old at home is not entitled to retire, whether or not there's a chance they could be deployed in the next two years, and there's no need to treat that as a neutral concern. The article shouldn't get bogged down with the comments made by so-and-so that's it's better to fight than run for Congress. As an encyclopedia article that is covering the whole biography in one place rather a news article that's going into the details, we don't have to present every "side" here. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::Seems to me that there are only two sides on this particular issue: those who condemn Walz for retiring before his unit deployed, and those who characterize that as an baseless smear. The media mostly don't take a side but instead report on both sides + the sequence of events. Some cite it as another potential instance of swiftboating. Right now, sole characterization of the Republican claims is "as a smear campaign that has been compared to swiftboating." But there are WP:RS that do not characterize it that way, and it seems to me that we need to acknowledge that.
:::::I don't see anyone claiming that he wasn't entitled to retire; rather, they're claiming that he was irresponsible to do so and perhaps did an end-run in order to do so (his retirement was finalized in May of 2005, but it's unclear when he originally filed the paperwork to retire). He was clearly still considering the possibility of deployment in March of 2005, after he'd already filed to run for Congress, "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq." "I don't want to speculate on what shape my campaign will take if I am deployed, but I have no plans to drop out of the race. I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic supporters and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq." ] (]) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] I find the current wording adequate. The article describes the timeline and that he has been attacked for the timing of his retirement before a potential deployment. Adding a paragraph of laundered GOP oppo research would be UNDUE and false balance. I think less is more here.-<b style="background:#00ffff">'']''</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 87%">(])</span> 18:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Ich}}, I'm not talking about adding a paragraph. I'm talking about replacing "have used the timing of his military retirement as a ] that has been compared to ]" with something like "have attacked the timing of his military retirement, while others have characterized that as ]." {{u|Reywas92}} has twice undone that kind of edit, and I'm trying to resolve it here instead of edit warring. The current wording says that it '''is''' a smear campaign (taking a side), whereas I see the latter wording as more neutral.
:::::::His retirement was finalized in May, but there's an open question in the timeline about when he first filed the paperwork to retire. A Fox News article says that the NG told them he filed 5-7 months before he retired, but Fox News isn't WP:RS for political news, and I haven't found any RS independently confirming that. Did he file before or after the NGPAO announced the possible deployment? In March, after hearing the NGPAO announcement of possible deployment, his stance was "I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization" but "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on..." I can understand how some think that he reneged on that. ] (]) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

== He is NOT CSM ==

He did not retire as a Command Sergeant Major. Please correct this error. He retired as a First Sergeant. ] (]) 23:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:Do you mean master sergeant? That is what the national guard insisted and disputes. https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-disputes-tim-walzs-military-biography-1936038 . However, he was selected to and frocked as an e9. In all my times in the Navy, no one would ever dispute someone having achieved a rank they were frocked for. It's on the military to ensure you have all prerequisits before they frock you. But it is correct he retired before his pay went into effect as e9. There's a lot of contention about what that means regarding rank achieved. Being frocked means you've achieved that rank, and have ownership to the claim, as far as anyone who actually knows what's going on inside the military is concerned. Being paid is what entitled you to various benefits beyond that. ] (]) 00:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::As I explained above, previously you could be pinned a higher rank without having the course requirements. It just started a clock and if you did not complete the course requirements in that timeframe then you lost the rank, so long as the Army actually offered you a date for the course, and you didn't miss it through no fault of your own, like having an injury. I was pinned both E5 and E6 before completing the course requirements. SM academy is a considerably lengthy residency course. It makes perfect sense that he wouldn't complete it if he planned on retiring.
::And yes, even if you lost it later, you held that rank and pay grade between your promotion and reduction orders. ]] 01:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Well stated @]. Thank you, -- ] (]) 08:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::], your explanation is your explanation based on your personal experience and personal knowledge. That's all great and thank you for your service. Regardless, Misplaced Pages wants and requires reliable sources, which you, as an editor, are not. I would imagine that even the Harris/Walz campaign webpage, as well as other reliable sources no longer stating that Walz was a CMSgt at retirement are sufficient to make sure he is no longer mentioned in this article as a retired CMSgt. Rather, to note that at one time he served in the capacity of a CMSgt but was reduced in rank and retired E-8, not E-9. The why it happened that way should also be noted. Don't you agree? Let's not also forget that when being made an E-9 with contingency, when he allowed the Army to promote him, ''he'' made a commitment to the Army, the United States Government and the people of this nation. That commitment was to follow through with attending and completing the course, already knowing how difficult, time encompassing, and intense it is. From what I've read, he didn't attend even one class, so it's not as if he started and stopped because his plans changed. One of the stories from his camp that I've read is he put in his papers for retirement in late 2004, at least five months before he separated in 2005. Now, all excuses and projected reasons aside, the bottom line is he reneged and continued to refer to himself until just recently as a CMSgt, an E-9, even though he knew he wasn't. That seems pretty problematic to me, and on a personal level, I'm genuinely troubled by it. In my book, a veteran who lived and perpetuated that kind of lie for that long is not worthy of trust until they've admitted their wrong to the nation and apologized. Thanks for listening. A4M2 ] (]) 18:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::It's AR 600-8-19. See also previous revisions. I'm not the source. I just happen to have a long while in Army administration and finance. The "but it wasn't a real promotion" doesn't have any basis in Army regulation. ]] 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Military rank ==

Please correct his rank to masterSargent ] (]) 01:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

:Please read every other thread on this page that discusses this. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::"Command Sergeant Major" is a role...not a "rank"...which is also an incorrect term for an enlisted person's "rate" (the correct term; again, not 'rank'). ] (]) 04:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with Schafercm. Please see my comments below with a source about what is true about his rank. ] (]) 07:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
He was a Master Sergeant not a Command sergeant major ] (]) 01:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

:The article is correct by many sources, such as , and well-discussed above.

Quote: ''"By the time Walz left the military, he achieved the rank of command sergeant major, one of the top ranks for an enlisted soldier. Personnel file records show that he was reduced in rank months after retiring, leaving him as a master sergeant for benefits purposes."'' ] (]) 02:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

New source, : {{tq|A national guard spokesperson told the BBC that “his rank reverted to master sergeant on May 15th, 2005, for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the US Army Sergeants Major Academy. He retired the following day.”}} ''']] (])''' 04:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
The article on Tim Walz states that he was in the Korean War. The Korean war was from 1950-1953, but Tim Walz was born in 1964 and so could not have participated. ] (]) 03:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not Done}} The article states that Walz's ''father'', not Tim Walz himself, served in the Korean War. ] (]) 03:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== Hatch Act and National Guard Retirement ==

Text in entry: "Walz retired from military service in May 2005; he later explained that he wanted to focus on his campaign for Congress and did not want to violate the Hatch Act, which forbids some political activities by federal government employees."
Governor Walz may have claimed that but there is nothing in the Hatch Act that prevents a Guard soldier from running for Congress. The evidence is, for example, Max Rose, Tulsi Gabbard, Steve Stivers. Why can't we be honest about this and just say he wanted to campaign for Congress instead of deploying to Iraq. ] (]) 05:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
* Hatch services members from promoting a political campaign or candidate, or asking for donations via platforms on which they have been prominently identified as a service member. For what it's worth, at least Tulsi Gabbard pretty flagrantly violated Hatch, maybe most strikingly while not only prominently associated with the armed services, but ''wearing her uniform and rank''.
: Don't fault someone for being too cautiously ethical about real or perceived conflicts of interest or the status of the armed forces as an apolitical body. ]] 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:Being deployed would make him active duty, and although someone on active duty can be a candidate, they cannot campaign or fundraise, which places severe restrictions on their efforts to be elected. See, for example, sections 4.1.2 and 4.3.3 of this and . ] (]) 13:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== New source on retirement ==

There's two sources, one from the Wall Street Journal and one from Fox News (which WSJ is referencing) that specify the timing of him submitting his retirement papers. The Fox News 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 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 ] 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 ], 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 ] 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 ], which forbids some political activities by federal government employees.

Thoughts? I think the wording I am proposing could be improved. ] (]) 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" (), 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," (), so why would he be wondering if he might be deployed if he knew that he'd already filed paperwork to retire? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] posted below about this. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Deagonx}}, OK, you've convinced me to change my mind. I'll add some text. ] (]) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|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 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. ] (]) 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 that finds Fox's claim worth repeating, with attribution, as does .
:::::::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." <b style="background:#00ffff">'']''</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 87%">(])</span> 17:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
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;) ] (]) 13:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:Fox News is not considered a ] for political news, per this Perennial sources description: . 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 (2) ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Change: "In August 2003, Walz deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Vicenza, Italy, for nine months to serve with the European Security Force in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."

Change Into: "In August 2003, Walz deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Vicenza, Italy, for nine months to serve with the European Security Force as part of Operation Enduring Freedom." (Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-guard-report-refutes-tim-walzs-claim-actually-toting-war-weapons-in-war)

Explanation: The Statement of the Minnesota National Guard makes it clear that he was technically part of the OEF: "The Minnesota National Guard told Fox News that Walz was part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) while he was stationed in Italy with his unit in 2005 ... : '"Second, there are questions about whether he served in OEF. His battalion was sent to Europe, in his case Vicenza to train units in artillery - his specialty was artillery. If you are deployed overseas in support of OEF according to the National Guard you officially served in OEF, whether you touched foot in Afghanistan or not. That is in his official military service record below.'" ] (]) 13:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:Again, Fox News is not considered a RS for political news. But I've been able to find two RSs that say Walz was "part of Operation Enduring Freedom," so I'll make the change, citing one or both of those. ] (]) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

I propose adding the following into the "Military service" subsection, after the mention of Operation Enduring Freedom, with a citation to :
: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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:"Accused" doesn't feel or read neutral to me, it reads a little ]. 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 ] (]) 22:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{User link|FactOrOpinion}}, I agree. {{User link|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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Here's a link to the video:
:::It's also reported without commas, as here: , 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. ] (]) 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." ] (]) 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 ] (]) 03:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
The rank that he is listed as leaving the army at is 'Command Sargeant Major', this is incorrect as it is established fact & is also covered further down in the article. He final rank, as per DoD records is 'Master Sargeant" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Master_sergeant#U.S._Army
I request, as the page is locked, that the listing of his rank as 'Command Sargeant Major' undrr his military service section be changed to correct it's inaccuracy & to correct show it as 'Master Sargeant'. ] (]) 04:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

{{nd}} - the edit request was not posed with a suggested change in content supported by a ] source. The discussion above and article describing his rank at retirement is correct as stated under ''Military service'': {{tq|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.}} ] (]) 06:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

== Military Service of Walz ==

His Military Service needs to be more accurate, he never keep his rank for Command Sergeant Major because he did not finish, as a matter of fact he retired as an E-8 because he failed to go to combat, please update his bio per this source: https://www.deseret.com/politics/2024/08/09/tim-walz-military-record-did-he-serve/ ] (]) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:This page is ]. What wording in the current article is inadequate? What wording would be an improvement? Why? What reliable source would be used? ] (]) 08:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:The article already states "Though he was a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major by his final day of service. The downgrade of one rank was effective from the day before his military retirement." This issue has already been discussed extensively above. Your view has already been addressed. ] (]) 15:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

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

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Change Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant. He objectively retired with a reduced rank of Master Sergeant. Big oof. ] (]) 20:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:You are correct, and it does need to be changed. A4M2 ] (]) 02:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::@], @]: 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 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 ] since it would impact how the template is being used. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Jackson was demoted by the Navy because of misconduct , after a formal DoDIG investigation into his conduct . The situation here is not analogous. ] (]) 13:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ronny Jackson uses his 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. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 15:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The instructions for the infobox read {{diff|Template:Infobox military person/doc|prev|1025470964|"highest rank achieved unless reduced"}} until ] in 2021, fwiw. --] 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Tim Walz|answered=yes}}
Tim Walz was NOT a commander! That must be removed immediately. Its false and untrue. ] (]) 02:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Please add ] to one of the other sections on this page. ] (]) 06:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
* You seem to be confusing the position of Commander with the rank of Command Sergeant Major. ]] 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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ]</small>
:"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. --] 19:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

== Non-neutral and other wording ==

Since ] 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 ] (]) 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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 04:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:What do reliable sources say? ] (]) 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 ] (]) 15:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::FWIW, there's some related discussion elsewhere on the page . 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 12:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::], 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 ] (]) 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. ]] 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. Misplaced Pages 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 ] (]) 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. ]] 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 ] (]) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not inventing something called a contingency promotion. ]] 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 ] (]) 18:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's not my job to find a wording you like. ]] 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? ]] 20:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::''"It's not my job to find a wording you like."'' ], 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?"'' ], 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 Misplaced Pages space with no meaningful suggestions at all by making it all about you and what you know? A4M2 ] (]) 21:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


if it's easier for one of the already conformed users to insert this, the file is ] ] (]) 04:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Stolen Valor ==


*{{already done}}<!-- Template:EEp -->. ] (]) 16:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Many from his own unit claimed he stole valor and deserted them, but because none of the sources Misplaced Pages claims are reliable will factually write about it they are allowed to keep that information off of his Misplaced Pages page. Dirty tricks Misplaced Pages has used for quite awhile. ] (]) 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". --] (]) 23:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:57, 6 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Walz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
    Section sizes
    Section size for Tim Walz (47 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 5,327 5,327
    Early life and education 15,228 15,228
    Early career 20 36,499
    Teaching 10,768 10,768
    Military service 20,988 20,988
    Political involvement 4,723 4,723
    U.S. House of Representatives (2007–2019) 49 36,109
    Elections 7,049 7,049
    Congressional tenure 25,455 25,455
    Committee assignments 1,149 1,149
    Caucus memberships 2,320 2,320
    Commissions 87 87
    Governor of Minnesota (2019–present) 44 58,045
    Elections 60 5,556
    2018 3,675 3,675
    2022 1,821 1,821
    Tenure 3,622 52,445
    Police reform and protest response 8,102 8,102
    Abortion 5,276 5,276
    Environment 5,388 5,388
    Infrastructure 6,558 6,558
    Education 5,450 5,450
    Cannabis 5,553 5,553
    Medical debt 1,461 1,461
    Native Americans 4,549 4,549
    2023 legislative session 3,021 3,021
    National politics 3,465 3,465
    2024 vice presidential campaign 16,464 16,464
    Political positions 637 21,144
    Abortion 2,385 2,385
    Education 900 900
    Guns 4,668 4,668
    Israel–Hamas war 3,129 3,129
    Labor and workers' rights 3,746 3,746
    LGBTQ rights 3,149 3,149
    Veterans' issues 2,530 2,530
    Personal life 13,854 13,854
    Awards and decorations 30 3,892
    Agriculture 858 858
    Military 3,004 3,004
    See also 136 136
    Notes 26 26
    References 30 30
    Further reading 212 212
    External links 102 5,561
    Official 395 395
    Other 5,064 5,064
    Total 212,527 212,527
    This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
    This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
    WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government / Science and Academia
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance).
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
    WikiProject iconChristianity: Lutheranism Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).
    WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
    WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / North America / United States / Cold War / Post-Cold War
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
    B checklist
    This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
    1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
    2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
    3. Structure: criterion met
    4. Grammar and style: criterion met
    5. Supporting materials: criterion met
    Associated task forces:
    / 
    Taskforce icon
    		Military biography task force
    Taskforce icon
    		North American military history task force
    Taskforce icon
    		United States military history task force
    Taskforce icon
    		Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
    Taskforce icon
    		Post-Cold War task force
    WikiProject iconMinnesota High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
    WikiProject iconU.S. Congress Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    This article is about one (or many) Person(s).
    WikiProject iconAmerican football Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconEducation Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconUnited States: Nebraska / Military history / Presidential elections / Governors Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance).
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Mid-importance).
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2024, when it received 11,777,623 views.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

    Tampon Tim

    The article does nothing to explain the actual meaning of the nickname. It wasn't just that he wanted to supply menstrual supplies to students. It's that they were included in boy's restrooms, on the presumption that boys menstruate. (They don't, for those unaware.) This should be explained in the article as currently it makes the nickname seem mean-spirited and anti-female, implying that the objection was to the free supply to girls, which wasn't the case. Objection was push back to the notion children can change their sex. 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4DB5:BD3C:4D80:6A60 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

    Whoever just deleted this is requested to use WP:civility. There is nothing in the archives showing this has been discussed. If so, please link to it.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:4DB5:BD3C:4D80:6A60 (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The very article apparently being used as a reference in the article talks about it. Which makes it seem previous editors have either misinterpreted the reason for the nickname, or perhaps just didn't read far enough into the article. This is what it says: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/07/nx-s1-5066878/tim-walz-tampon-law-minnesota
    But Republicans appear to be taking issue with the wording of the legislation, which says the products must be available “to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students.”
    Some Minnesota Republicans initially tried to limit the initiative to female-assigned and gender-neutral bathrooms, but were unsuccessful. Even the author of that amendment ultimately voted for the final version of the bill, saying his family members “felt like it was an important issue I should support.”
    The bill’s inclusive language reflects that not all people who menstruate are women, and not all women get periods, which was important to those who lobbied for the legislation.
    “It will make it more comfortable for everyone … then people can use whatever restroom they want without being worried,” Bramwell Lundquist, then 15, told MPR News last year.
    But some in the Republican Party — which has increasingly promoted anti-transgender policies and rhetoric — see that aspect of the bill as a reason to attack Walz. (emphasis added)198.161.4.108 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The election is over. Can we not post election lies here? This was widely debunked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The news story used as a reference in the article states it flat out. In what way is the reason for the nickname "debunked"? Whether or not it happened, that's how he got the nickname and that context is important. 198.161.4.108 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    And your LA Times article "debunking" it says this: "So why the Tampon Tim uproar? Mostly it is about the language of the Minnesota law, which states that pads and tampons must be available to “all menstruating students” " This is the missing context of the Misplaced Pages article. Your link: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-08-07/tim-walz-tampon-law-menstrual-products 198.161.4.108 (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    Read the seven links I provided in their entirety. The law does NOT say tampons must be put in boys rooms. It says nothing about sex changes. It is similar to laws in a couple dozen states, many supported by Republicans. The law was widely supported in the state. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    The links are irrelevant since what the bill actually said is not the point (thought your links do confirm the wording as "menstruating students" so hardly debunked). We're talking about the context and rationale for the nickname. Regardless of what the bill actually said, the nickname is a reference to the perception that menstrual products were being made available in boy's spaces. The article at present paints those giving the nickname unfairly.198.161.4.108 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    In fact, the CNN article you cite actually states that tampons may have been available in male multi-stall bathrooms.198.161.4.108 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    Trump stated: “He signed a bill that boys’ bathrooms — all boys’ bathrooms in Minnesota — will have tampons.” Ridiculous lie. The CNN article states: "All 15 of the districts that responded Friday to a CNN survey of 25 districts, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts in the state’s two most populous cities, said they comply with the law without providing tampons in traditional boys’ bathrooms." O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    I never mentioned Trump. The NPR article used as a reference is the one to state the rationale. Again, it doesn't matter what Trump said - we're talking about the origin of the nickname, and the fact that it is misrepresented in the article as currently written.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:D50:7F7E:3311:14BA (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    No, according to reliable sources it was misrepresented by Trump. The article states what reliable sources state. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Trump had it right. The law as written deliberately mentioned "menstruating students" instead of the word "girls" because of the agenda it was promoting. And Walz got called Tampon Tim because of that, not the fact that the products were free.198.161.4.108 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    That there was some such "agenda" is your opinion, and a mighty unlikely one at that. We don't use our opinions WP:OR. We use WP:RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2024

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    Change Command Sargent Major to Master Sargent. Highest grade attained by Timothy Walz as per his official military 201 and finance records is E-8: aka Master Sargent. 152.117.114.53 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    Change rank from Command Sergeant Major to Master Sergeant. Tim Walz failed to complete all requirements to keep the rank of Command Sergeant Major therefore he was demoted to Master Sergeant after retirement. 2600:1014:A000:C3A7:9438:9E38:32C0:C7F2 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: See the previous discussions EvergreenFir (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

    Portrait?

    Is there an official portrait that we can use for the info box? Pikachubob3 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

    Categories: