:Talk:Mike Waltz

Is his [https://archive.is/ltBIY reported use of Gmail] for government communications worth mentioning here? GnocchiFan (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what it sounds like. A media rumor. Until anything is confirmed by the admin (NOT an anonymous source), he is still NSA. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:He is toast lol 2600:100C:B053:44B7:F01A:7259:60A7:301D (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Rumored exit", and assuming that he is announced the UN Ambassador? Truth Social is social media, and per the first amendment, they can say anything without government action, Trump could have been hacked, lied, or just joking around, we need an official announcement from Whitehouse.gov website, and not just news source and a website, as this is a BLP, We need RELIABLE sources. {{pb}}I encourage everyone to read up on the following essay Wikipedia:TDS. {{pb}}Till then, the exit should be removed, and a section should be made about a rumored exit and about the nomination on truth social, this is not official yet, therefore it shouldn't be included. {{pb}}I will be leaving a talk page message on each one to see this thread, and request that it be increased in protection, due to unreliable sources on a BLP, and current event. {{pb}}Thanks, Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

“decorated with four Bronze Stars, including two for valor..” the source for this claim is a partisan PAC, and the link does not lead to anything about him 2600:100C:B053:44B7:F01A:7259:60A7:301D (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{pdone}} A USA Today article was a better reference for the same claim, so that sentence is now properly referenced.

:I also noticed that the extensive and elaborate Awards and decorations section is wholly unreferenced, and a brief search did not find a source. So I flagged that, and the problem of referencing his military ribbons and medals remains unfinished. -- M.boli (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Waltz is an intended nominee for the position of US ambassador to the UN, but he has not been confirmed yet. The inclusion of this strikes me as a substantial violation of WP:CRYSTAL, an opinion shared by another editor at the Teahouse (here). I intend to remove this from the infobox ASAP, but encourage any other editor to do so. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Did you bother to read WP:CRYSTAL? It states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This policy prevents editors from adding their own predictions, not from using sources which make predictions. Dimadick (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Dimadick}} You seem to not understand what you quote. That's about writing to discuss potential outcomes discussed in RSs, not adding a position to someone's infobox when they have yet to actually attain that position. With all the data scraping done by LLMs/AIs, having a misleading infobox is especially problematic. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Discuss it in the body, but leave it out of the infobox until he's confirmed. Pretty standard stuff for officeholders, as is this awkward period where the announcement is big news. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)