Jump to content

Talk:Tim Walz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    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]
    One cannot attain the rank without completing the required coursework. He was never anything more than an acting CSM. He had the position pending his completion of the requirements. That’s not an attack on him or his service, that’s just the way it works. 96.8.130.46 (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. I haven't found a single source that claims Walz ever fully attained the rank of CSM. If anyone has such a source, I'd be glad to see it. Ozone742 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alleged edit warring. In which you participated.
    Anyway, the infobox doesn't always go off the highest rank attained by a servicemember. For example, Bowe Bergdahl's rank is listed as Private, but clarified that he held the rank of Sergeant previously. Or Ronny Jackson, who was a Rear Admiral, but recieved a retroactive demotion to Captain. And his infobox labels him as such.
    So far, I haven't seen any verifiable source that claims Walz attained the rank of CSM, and we know for a fact that he officially retired at the rank of E-8 MSG. So, to be consistent with other articles and to be objectively correct, his infobox should reflect his rank of MSG. Ozone742 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be consistent, I suppose we should change the other articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would fix the issue of inconsistency, but at the expense of accuracy. Walz didn't complete the requirements needed for his promotion, so labeling him a CSM is misleading.
    I doubt anyone would be on board with listing someone like Bergdahl as a Sergeant either. Ozone742 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard here is the highest rank achieved by the person unless a reduction in rank occurred (whether by punishment, voluntary, or as part of joining another military unit or military service). Bergdahl was punished. Retirement is not a voluntary reduction in rank, otherwise there would be no rank. How retirement pay is calculated is a different matter.[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His reduction in rank wasn't a result of his retirement. It was because he failed to fulfill the requirements to warrant holding the rank of CSM. This isn't just some issue over retirement pay.
    Beyond that, I haven't seen anything from Wikipedia guidelines that claims what you're saying. Ozone742 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked to what I am saying. And we have heard your opinion many times now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing on that page that says what you claimed. Nothing clarifying what to do in cases of demotion or reduction in rank. Please be more honest about this kind of stuff moving forward.
    We've also heard your case many times now too, and it still doesn't make sense.ill ask again, if you have any verifiable evidence that Walz didn't recieve a reduction in rank for failing to meet the requirements for the rank of CSM, then you'd have a case. Im betting no such evidence exists. Otherwise it probably would've come out by now. Ozone742 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions for rank in an infobox can be found at Template:Infobox_military_person/doc. To quote: rank – the highest rank achieved by the person. He was promoted to a Command Sergeant Major, per the citations already present in the article. The way the regulations in question work is that you get the promotion, and then you 'revert' to the previous rank if you don't meet the requirements at the end of the given time period. For many people, this is because they get promoted while on deployment and it could be months or years before they can attend in-person courses. But those folks absolutely do hold the rank in the meantime. MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't what's in question here. The fact of the matter is that Walz did officially hold the rank of CSM, but since he didn't fulfill the requirements for that promotion, he didn't retain that rank. That's what we're talking about.
    I read that section for the template. It makes no mention of what to do in cases of reduction in rank despite what the other commenter claimed. In other words, that entire page is of no use here. Ozone742 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'the highest rank achieved by the person' means exactly what it says and clearly does address this situation. In cases of a reduction, we still list the 'highest' rank. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect. Many Wikipedia articles do not just use the highest rank attained if the person was reduced in rank. We've been over this already. And, as already established, the matter of whether or not Walz actually attained the rank of CSM is questionable since the National Guard states that he failed to meet the requirements upon retirement. Ozone742 (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have raised this point before, but it remains unconvincing. The problem with holding up other Wikipedia articles is that you cannot establish which usage is incorrect - your examples could well be the ones that need fixing. whether or not Walz actually attained the rank of CSM is questionable you're welcome to question it all you like, but Wikipedia will follow the cited sources and not your questions. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont care if you find it unconvincing. The fact of the matter is that you and others have claimed that Wikipedia always uses the highest rank attained, and that is objectively false. To say that we should just change all the other articles that use the most current rank in cases of reduction is problematic because that raises an issue of accuracy and misinformation. The cited sources literally say that Walz failed to fulfill the necessary qualifications to hold the rank of CSM. I dont know why this is so hard for certain people to grasp. Ozone742 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is hard for certain people to grasp because reading the citations does not match your claimed summary of their content. Similarly, we believe what the infobox instructions plainly say. MrOllie (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So none of the cited sources that have been provided on here, from verifiable sources according to Wikipedia, state that Walz failed to complete the necessary coursework to retain the rank of CSM? Because last I checked, that's what they say. From the National Guard itself no less. The point about the infobox seems to be moot. The page about infobox information for servicemembers doesn't address cases of reduction in rank, and precedent is that the reduced rank is what's used in the infobox. Ozone742 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We care that they say he attained the rank. We do not conduct WP:OR to try to undercut the plain language of the sources. The page about infobox information for servicemembers doesn't address cases of reduction in rank - repeating that over and over will not make it more true or more convincing. Since we are repeating ourselves, it seems useful discussion is at an end for the moment. I won't be replying here again unless something new comes up. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. I'm not going to continuing talking about this with someone acting in bad faith. If you choose to not read the sources on this matter and actually look at the page about infoboxes for servicemembers, that's on you. Ozone742 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    "Acting rank" isn't really a thing. Rank is rank. Your role is determined by 1) rank, and 2) position. Specialists can be acting squad leaders (a position normally occupied by an NCO). Lieutenants can be acting company commanders. It doesn't change their rank. It doesn't change what they wear on their chest. It's a change in position only. GMGtalk 11:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Acting Rank" is very much a thing but application of the term doesn't apply for the purposes of an encyclopedia article infobox. And you are conflating rank and appointment while accusing others of the same. Mostly "acting rank" permits someone unqualified (with regards to time in rank and required courses) to act in an appointment that requires a soldier of the requisite rank. There are implications for pay, etc. that again, really don't matter for this infobox.198.161.4.108 (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've said this a zillion times. The authoritative source is AR 600-8-19. Like pretty much all Army Regulations it's available online. The thing that gives you the rank is promotion orders. The thing that takes it away is reduction orders. Between the two, you held that rank. You didn't kinda sorta hold it. You didn't hold it "unofficially", whatever that's supposed to mean. The only thing in the military that approaches an "unofficial rank" is a brevet which is purely symbolic and honorific and confers no actual change in authority or station. This fell out of use in the US military entirely some time ago, which is probably why most people have never heard of it. GMGtalk 11:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that he officially held the rank of CSM, but that it was on a conditional basis. He failed to uphold those conditions, and so his rank was reduced to E-8 MSG. Ozone742 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What you started this with was "Walz did not fully attain the rank of CSM". This is not a true statement. I'm getting a little worn on people who played Call of Duty coming here and trying to explain military administration. GMGtalk 17:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Drop the attitude pal. I'm a veteran. I know how rank works. I stand by what I originally said. He didn't fully attain the rank since he failed to meet the qualifications necessary for it. That's the whole reason this discussion is happening right now. Ozone742 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, tyfys, but no that's not how ranks work. GMGtalk 19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please explain how I'm wrong then. According to a National Guard spokesman, his rank was reduced because he failed to complete the necessary coursework for it. There are other sources out there saying it also depended on him completing his contract, but I don't know of any verifiable sources that confirm that stipulation. Anyhow, Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM because of his failure to meet the qualifications for it. Ergo, he didn't fully attain the rank. That doesn't mean he never officially held it, but only that it was retroactively reduced. Ozone742 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope. There is no retroactive reduction. GMGtalk 20:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well...there might be a form of retroactive reduction in rank imposed by a court martial? GMGtalk 20:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I remember back when I thought my personal expertise was worth anything on wikipedia. LOL. Please see WP:V War (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'm quite familiar with V. Go up a bit where I cite my source in Army regulation. GMGtalk 20:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What would you call it when a servicemember fails to fulfill the requirements for a promotion and is reduced in rank? Anyway, this is besides the point. Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM, and his infobox should reflect that. We have precedent on Wikipedia for this. Ozone742 (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your precedents were for Ronny Jackson, demoted for various inappropriate behaviors, and Bowe Bergdahl, dishonorably discharged. These are obviously not precedents for Tim Walz. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? Ozone742 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about Eugene Vindman? He was a Col while active duty but retired as LTC due to insufficient time in rank requirement. His Wikipedia page has him listed as a LTC not Col. Eugene Vindman Arcatheo (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So fix it in Vindman's article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But why would I? His rank is correct he retired as a LTC because he was ineligible to retain his Col rank. Arcatheo (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read everything that has been said here on the subject. The infobox contains highest rank held, not highest rank retained or rank for retirement purposes. And you are responding to a month old post. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      “Your precedents were for Ronny Jackson, demoted for various inappropriate behaviors, and Bowe Bergdahl, dishonorably discharged. These are obviously not precedents for Tim Walz.” You are okay with their rank not being listed as highest rank attained. You wanted a better comparison, so I showed you Vindman as another example of someone’s info box not showing their highest rank attained because they were reduced before retirement for administrative reasons like Walz was. Arcatheo (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see no evidence Walz's rank was reduced before retirement. He was not demoted for various inappropriate behaviors or dishonorably discharged. How his retirement pay was based is quite different. I also don't know how the other two should be termed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're just being disingenuous again. We already have sources provided that show, objectively, that Walz's rank was reduced. If you're going to make the argument that his rank should stay the way it is in the infobox, you need to accept that and grapple with it instead of denying it. Ozone742 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A.) False. B.) Read WP:AGF WP:CIV WP:DROPTHESTICK . O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Take your own advice. Hypocrisy isn't a good look. Ozone742 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, this conversation is clearly not going to be productive. Good luck. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That was already established last time we talked on here and you repeated the same lie about Wikipedia's standard for rank in infoboxes. If you have nothing new to add to the conversation, then don't come on here. Simple as that. Talk pages aren't meant for you to bicker. Ozone742 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You would call it a reduction in rank? GMGtalk 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which proves my point. Ozone742 (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You can't be reduced from a rank you don't have. GMGtalk 00:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't hard to grasp dude. I never said that Walz didn't hold the rank of CSM. Only that he didn't fully attain it because of his failure to meet the requirements. This has already been discussed. The point of contention is that his rank in the infobox doesn't reflect his reduction like other articles for servicemembers who have had reduced rank. Ozone742 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The difference between "hold" and "attain" is semantic. You're arguing with them as if they are highly specific terms of art with very particular meanings. You could just as well replace them with "have" and "get".
      I never said that Walz didn't have the rank of CSM. Only that he didn't fully get it.
      I don't want to denigrate your service. All honorable service is honorable. But I suspect it wasn't in military human resources administration. GMGtalk 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The point of this talk page isn't to bicker about semantics or my personal life. I only bring up the point of "fully attain" vs "officially held" because you were asking about it, and because it's relevant to the matter at hand. Walz didn't fully attain the rank of CSM, which led to his reduction to E-8. That's the whole point here. There is no disputing that Walz didn't retain the rank of E-9 CSM, and as such, his infobox should reflect that. Engage with that material. 98.115.149.19 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Walz didn't fully attain This is the disconnect. You have not shown that. Your whole point is a house built on a missing foundation. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The foundation is there. Just because you chose to refrain from reading the multiple reliable sources that all cite the same National Guard spokesman who stated that Walz failed to meet the qualifications for CSM doesn't mean anything. Ozone742 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are the one arguing semantics and bringing in your personal life. I didn't ask if you were a veteran. GMGtalk 11:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Way to be disingenuous. You said, "I'm getting a little worn on people who played Call of Duty coming here and trying to explain military administration." Grow up and actually engage with what I'm saying. Ozone742 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      besides he's liberal. So in the conversation he could claim to be on the joint chiefs and they would say oh yeah he was. Plus george Washington was only a private because he wasn't liberal. 2600:1009:B170:ADA8:D596:BD9D:74B6:EA3B (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty sure not wanting a king was pretty progressive for the time. GMGtalk 12:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand where you're coming from, but it's more helpful to just engage with the material at hand. Wikipedia's bias is a separate topic. Ozone742 (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    National Guard service

    [edit]

    The third paragraph of "Early life and education" says he served in the Texas and Arkansas National Guard. The infobox says Nebraska and Minnesota. Which is it? 67.231.67.253 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tampon Tim

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The election is over. Can we not post election lies here? This was widely debunked. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Portrait photo after election loss

    [edit]

    Should his picture be changed to what it was before he was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, since he lost the election? CGP05 (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Error on deployment date of 1/125

    [edit]

    The Minnesota National Guard confirmed that Walz retired two months before his former unit was notified on July 14 of its potential deployment to Iraq. That unit received its mobilization order in August and deployed to Iraq in March 2006, ten months after Walz retired.

    The above dates are NOT correct! Our units deployed in 2005 Sept NOT 2006. We were on Active Duty training from Sept 2005 to March 2006. Then the unit went to Iraq in March 2006 but we were on active duty as of Sept 2005 when we went to Mississippi for training. We were placed on Stop Loss before he retired, when we were notified in March 2005! By 2005 July 15 we were notified on where we were going and were in the process of getting our TA-50 in order to deploy in Sept. So no, we did NOT deploy 10 months after he retired, we deployed FOUR (4) months after he retired!

    In fact, to try and off-set the outrage by soldiers in our units, because of his retirement, they gave us an option. If you deployed to Italy in 2003 and you are to retire in 2005-2006 or have an ETS date in 2005-2006 during the deployment, you could opt out, however, you had to remain in the unit, back in the states, until the deployment was over.

    So there is a ton of inaccurate information in this article in just that one little section. I served with Tim Walz, I was in 1/125 FA SVC BTY in St. Peter where he was in HQ in New Ulm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaker1976 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is correct, then I'd suggest looking up articles on your unit's deployment to provide conclusive evidence for the dating. You can usually find news articles online from that time that record this stuff. Ozone742 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Walz&oldid=1256449371"