Talk:Tim Walz

Police reform update

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

Typo

Ultimately he and Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro were the two remaining contenders.[8] 2604:2D80:DA02:D900:EA74:6BA1:508D:23B6 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Harris Picks Walz

CNN has it - probably better to wait for an official announcement from the campaign, but if I could, I'd have the edit typed out, just waiting to hit publish. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Also reported by Reuters and AP. CallMeSarge (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Robert, it’s Kamala Harris. I’m pleased to share that I’ve made my decision: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz will join our campaign as my running mate.

Tim is a battle-tested leader who has an incredible track record of getting things done for Minnesota families. I know that he will bring that same principled leadership to our campaign, and to the office of the vice president.

Now, would you pitch in $20 to welcome Tim to our ticket? We are relying on your immediate support to defeat Donald Trump and JD Vance.

https://m.kamalaharris.com/jlB6Gsi0

It means the world to me, to Tim, and to our families to have you in our corner.

– Kamala

Stop2Quit 192.81.106.218 (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

In 1995, he was arrested for a driving under the influence charge, REMOVE COMMA HERE and has been a teetotaler ever since Monkeywire (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

"Usage of the serial comma varies among writers and editors and also varies among the regional varieties of English." Presumably Monkeywire is one of those who don't use it, like me. Either is fine, but the article should probably try to be consistent on this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't use it either. I haven't checked the article for which of the two is used the most. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a serial comma and the sentence has been slightly rewritten. Should be a non-issue. Rutsq (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Remove the respelling and add a pronunciation guide in line with MOS:PRON. The IPA given is identical to that of the English word 'walls', so there is no need for a respelling that won't be as helpful to anyone who is not linguistically-inclined. Just simply note that his surname is pronounced like the existing English word. 85sl (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you give a concrete example of what you're envisioning? Vrrajkum (talk) 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 MOS:RESPELL 85sl (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vrrajkum (talk) 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". 2600:1700:1900:8A70:D132:ACFF:E1CB:5031 (talk) 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 Cot–caught merger; most Americans will pronounce his name as [wɑːlz] because that is the representation of the phoneme /ɔ/ in their dialect. Since 'walls' is /wɔːlz/ in every American dialect, just like Walz's surname, the pronunciation guide is correct. I request that someone restore the pronunciation guide version. 85sl (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought /oʊ/ was the vowel in "hoax". 2600:1700:1900:8A70:D132:ACFF:E1CB:5031 (talk) 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. 85sl (talk) 01:04, 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") Gamerik (talk) 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 (archive) Gamerik (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"As in fraud"

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

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

Walz as presumptive nominee?

Posted the same thing in the talk page for the 2024 presidential election page; Walz is listed here as the presumptive nominee, but on the 2024 election page he’s not given the presumptive tag. Consistency between pages would be nice. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

He's still presumptive until he is formally nominated by the Democratic National Committee. Vrrajkum (talk) 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 Tim Scott and Marco Rubio. 107.122.93.125 (talk) 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). Vrrajkum (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vrrajkum Your point about collapsing is correct. Thanks. Given that shouldn’t service in congress take precedent and his short tenure as ranking member be put below his 13 years service in congress (as it is more notable). Thanks 107.122.93.125 (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Military Career

Did he not retire as a Master Sergeant having chosen to quit the military to run for Congress ? 2603:7082:E440:D:9450:45FE:5D9C:2B3C (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

This stated he was a Command Sergeant Major. But he didn't finish the required training to be that rank? He retired as a Master Sergeant. That is a textual contradiction. Which is correct? 75.87.117.215 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DUI Arrest

Isn’t it a bit odd that this page doesn’t mention his 1996 arrest for drunk driving? 2600:1700:8659:4300:A4C6:DF2F:7BC1:3E13 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim Walz#Early life and education Vrrajkum (talk) 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. 2600:1700:8659:4300:A4C6:DF2F:7BC1:3E13 (talk) 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. Rutsq (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Spot On. More needs to be stated than the use of poor criminal jargon.. AntiqueMe2 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Command Sgt Major

Walz was reduced in rank to Master Sgt

https://www.wctrib.com/community/letters/the-truth-about-tim-walz 2600:1001:B142:E918:9554:3301:AAF3:8D65 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox voice box

Hello! I've just uploaded a bunch of voice clips from Walz from when he was in Congress to use to potentially replace the voice box we have on the page now. If this is something anyone would like to do, feel free to take a look and pick your favorite. Cheers! Y2hyaXM (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Political positions" should be merged into other sections

It's odd that he's the governor of Minnesota but most of his successes as governor are in a completely different section that also includes his House tenure. Also, his governorship could get its own article. Rexxx7777 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Main page update/First Term discussion in lede

The section on the page main describing his first term as governor is far too critical. Should present a more balanced view. IronicUsername44 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guest2625 - Sorry, didn't mean to revert you there in my most recent edit, I think we published at the same time. Only meant to delete a sentence in the beginning.

In any case, I disagree with you @Tartaral and @IronicUsername44 about this. These are important, overarching facts related to his first term that are well-sourced and should be mentioned in the beginning. Happy to hear your thoughts as to why it shouldn't. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 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 this source Major General Jon Jensen testified to Congress, and said that the response was expeditious, and that "putting soldiers on the streets takes time. First, they have to be called up to their local armories and then are given orders and supplies before moving out. And, Jensen said, not all Guard members have the same skills."

The phrase "criticism for a failure" also implies that a failure has indeed occurred, and that failure is being criticized. But if Major General Jon Jensen's testimony has weight, then your wording is insertion of conclusiveness at worst and nebulous at best. It can certainly be improved if you feel it is merely nebulous.

For example, "During X, this major event Y occurred, and some felt that Z." It's the same for the second one, where "failure to rein in" is written. I'd have to check the source, but this has the same issue. If these are third-party individuals of a less-than-overwhelming view, then what's doing the overshadowing, and what's defining the failure? Is it even objectively true? In other words, you can split these into two issues: 1 - Language that implicitly suggests it is overshadowing when the sources do not suggest it and 2 - Language that implicitly suggests that it is indeed a failure to begin with.)

You wrote here it is "overarching," which is just another synonym for "overshadowing," without a metric by which that makes sense. But also, mostly because your source doesn't align with it very well, and it feels like colourful addenda absent additional sources. TheAnathema (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Properly pinging @Tataral - misspelled your username, sorry! — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 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 62.217.185.86 (talk) 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. --Tataral (talk) 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 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Progressive" isn't "far-left" in any global context, or even in Overton window-skewed American domestic politics. Save far-left for Maoists. Talkpages aren't Internet political fora. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Right now, you're the one, using this talk page as a forum 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then stop using casual political forum chat terms and propose actionable changes based on reliable sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 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. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 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 62.217.185.86 (talk) 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. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 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 it62.217.185.86 (talk) 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". --Tataral (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Bringing trump to this article is irrelevant. And by the way, January 6 IS mentioned in his article. 62.217.185.86 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though the crux of the issue is that the sources say that some people have a criticism of these events, and these sources are specific to those events. The people the source references: State Senator Warren Limmer. Another point is that, at least for the first event, the director of the National Guard testified to a Senate committee saying that the response was expeditious and listed reasons why it wouldn't be as quickly as some people would expect.

To go beyond the sources to say that these "overshadow" his entire term, and define it as a failure, despite the director of the National Guard saying otherwise, seems problematic. Whose POV is this? Senator Limmer's? Can this all be written better?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. TheAnathema (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm seeing one vague sentence in the body of the article about "political opponents and other groups" criticizing Walz's response to the protests. There could possibly be value to saying something in the lead about the protests happening during Walz's first term. But adding content to the lead about political opponents criticizing Walz's response to the protests seems like it would cause problems with both NPOV and UNDUE. --Jpcase (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And only keeping in language about his successes isn't UNDUE?

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 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. --Jpcase (talk) 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 WP:NPOV. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Nebraska Citizen-Soldier of the Year is not Substantiated

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

Spelling

It’s WAIVER not WAVER 2600:1700:DFB0:90E0:A9B2:96B6:3DC9:8674 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct and  Done with a wikilink. Zefr (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)