Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

edit

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

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

  Not done: The source is an ad. Besides, this has been discussed over and over. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done: Please read this talk page and its archives for the previous discussions on this. Rillian (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Though he was serving as a command sergeant major at the time of his retirement, Walz's final military rank for retirement benefit purposes is master sergeant, as he had not completed the required academic coursework to remain a command sergeant major before his retirement. "
This is incorrect, it was not done for Benefit purposes, it was done because he did not complete the SMA as he was required per his counseling. Stating "it was for benefit purposes" paints a picture that this was voluntary, when it was ordered he was no longer allowed to be a CSM. The fact is he was demoted (per army regulations) for not following through with his counseling, that is a negative affect on him.
This type of verbiage continues to show the propaganda that Wikipedia creates with biasness towards Political figures.
https://www.newsweek.com/national-guard-disputes-tim-walzs-military-biography-1936038
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/08/natl-guard-confirms-harris-vp-was-demoted-after-retiring-before-iraq-deployment/
Army Regulations that back this up: https://web.archive.org/web/20231105074813/https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36067-AR_600-8-19-000-WEB-1.pdf TheNathanMuir (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first cite is not a reliable source. The second provides the quote: “retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.” The third, is a primary source being used by you for original research. The statement by you This type of verbiage continues to show the propaganda that Wikipedia creates with biasness towards Political figures. is a violation of AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not very proficient at Wikipedia editing, but it seems like you're responding to this request in bad faith. Three sources that all say the same thing that's been confirmed by Walz's former unit in the Minnesota National Guard. He did not retain the rank of CSM, but instead left the service at the rank of MSG. This is not disputed even by sources that frame Walz in a positive light.
This article currently gives his rank as Command Sergeant Major, and that is objectively false. I dont see any discussions on here other than people bringing this up and getting shot down. That is unacceptable. Ozone742 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Walz held the rank of Command Sergeant Major. This has been discussed on this talk page. Search the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Conditionally holding a rank means you need to uphold the conditions to retain it. Walz did not meet those conditions. I don't care if you and others talked about this to death. Reality is that the highest rank attained was Master Sergeant. Ozone742 (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:TRUTH O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
What I wrote is verifiable and the truth. Please stop wasting people's time. Ozone742 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The highest rank he attained was clearly Command Sergeant Major, though he retired at Master Sergeant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is not at all clear. He held the rank of CSM conditionally, and he failed to uphold those conditions. My edit is accurate, easily understood, and relevant. Why are you so interested in removing this important clarification? Ozone742 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not quite right -- he reverted to an E8 before he retired. See BBC News "Fact-Check" on the issue. This is not a controversial statement and he never completed the requirements to hold the rank he has claimed and which is incorrectly reflected in this Wikipedia article. He was in an acting role and would have made it if he stayed and completed the requirements.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze5gzr97ewo DiacriticalOne (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He did reach the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but he officially retired one rank below as a master sergeant. And the infobox lists the highest rank attained. The prose describes the situation in detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is a big difference between the rank of a military individual and a position that they may. MSgt Walz served as an acting command position but did so as a MSgt. Please correct your error as all military personnel know this error. I have been a donor to your Wikipedia and will be looking for your correction asap. 2601:3C8:C081:7BC0:0:0:0:95B (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This section is almost a month old and has run beyond its course. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Requesting immediate archiving...

New infobox photo

edit

Propose updating infobox photo to

 

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2024

edit

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

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

Accomplishments List

edit

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

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

There are even more accomplishments, and hopefully they are added here over time. I would also like to request clarification of the following:

- The "paid leave" specifically covers 12 weeks of paid family leave, 12 weeks of paid medical leave, or a combined total of 20 weeks, making it one of the leading paid leave programs in the country [8]. - After initially vetoing a bill to increased pay for rideshare drivers (since Uber and Lyft were threatening to leave the state), Walz eventually came to a compromise to increase the pay [9].

It is also worth adding that before the 2023 legislative session, Walz passed a breakthrough insulin affordability bill even with a Republican-controlled State Senate [10]. 2601:600:9080:62D0:D1EF:E163:96CE:A896 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Service Rank

edit

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

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

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

I have no idea but I can say that people should not be exchanging opinions. Instead, exchange what reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OP was blocked for edit warring. To be clear, the infobox lists the highest rank attained, as it does for all biographies, while the prose in Tim Walz#Military service describes the situation in more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He never attained the rank in the article. He was in an acting role pending completion of the requirements, which he never did. The infobox is incorrect.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze5gzr97ewo DiacriticalOne (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He did reach the rank of command sergeant major near the end of his service, but he officially retired one rank below as a master sergeant. And the infobox lists the highest rank attained. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply